The Alan Grayson Page

The Anthony Weiner Page

Guest Contributors


  • BN-Politics' administrators respect, but do not necessarily endorse, views expressed by our contributors. Our goal is to get the ideas out there. After that, they're on their own.
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 05/2007

Blog Catalog

  • Liberalism Political Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory



« Keeping Faith | Main | Man Chucks Tomatoes at Palin »

December 05, 2009



ridiculous 'Climategate' story? We've got internal e-mails from warm-mongers that show with-holding and modifying data, failure of their computer models, and conspiracy to obstruct Freedom of Information requests. Ridiculous? Maybe to you. I just ain't so interested in letting the UN, and Obama, and the Democrats raise my energy costs and then raise my energy taxes on top o' that by following the advice of so-called scientists who are just lying out their own assholes. And "the reality of climate change"... A few years ago, you would have called it reality of global warming? And a few years ago was the last time I got my window-unit air conditioner out of the basement because the last few summers have been so cool.


(witholding of information / data):
From 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.

(modifying data):
From 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?

(acknowleding the urban effect):
From Tom Wigley
We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.

(modification of data to hide unwanted results):
From 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.

(failure of computer models):
From 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.

(truth doesn't matter):
From Michael Mann

Perhaps we'll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page--Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa '06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.

(witholding of data):
From Phil Jones
The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! ... The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! Cheers Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !

(using a website to control the message, hide dissent):
From Michael E. Mann
Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC [ - 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.

(witholding of data):
From 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.


How are you, flowerplough? Always a pleasure.

As for the 'Climategate story,' I'm gonna go with the 90+% of climatologists who believe climate change (yes, global warming!) to be a real and critical issue. You can continue to enjoy the cool summers where you are and rail against the consensus by highlighting this 'story.' Oh, and I wouldn't sell the AC unit yet.


90% of climatologists do not believe in AGW and there is no consensus (as though consensus would really matter, afterall consensus said the sun revolves around the earth at one time). You didnt present a single shred of evidence to discredit "flowerplough".


And there’s also this one more, from Phil Jones, who admits he isn’t allowed to admit that the Earth actually cooled from 1998 - 2005:

From: Phil Jones
To: John Christy
Subject: This and that
Date: Tue Jul 5 15:51:55 2005

There has been some email traffic in the last few days to a week - quite a bit really, only a small part about MSU. The main part has been one of your House subcommittees wanting Mike Mann and others and IPCC to respond on how they produced their reconstructions and how IPCC
produced their report.
In case you want to look at this see later in the email !

Also this load of rubbish !

This is from an Australian at BMRC (not Neville Nicholls). It began from the attached article. What an idiot.

The scientific community would come down on me in no
uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant. The Australian also alerted me to this blogging ! I think this is the term ! Luckily I don’t live in Australia.


And even mo' fo' Phil Jones:

'Climategate' professor Phil Jones awarded £13 million in research grants.

...Prof Jones' name appears alongside all the grants, which range in value from as little as £730 for work carried out on Scottish temperature indices for the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to £6.6 million given by the Higher Education Funding Council for England for the establishment of the Zuckerman Institute for Connective Environmental Research at UEA, an award wining research facility which includes the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change.

According to the spreadsheet, Prof Jones's first successful grant application was made in 1991 to the Department of Environment and was worth £179,484 for 'climate change detection'.

Other grants appear more obscure such as a European Union grant for £42,464 for a project entitled: "Assessing the impact of future climatic change on the water resources and the hydrology of the Rio de la Plata Basin."

Several grants, totalling more than £3 million, are made by the National Environment Research Council, a quango based in Swindon. They include research for "Exploring the potential for dendroclimatological analysis in Northern Ethiopia" which was worth £18,639.

Besides Prof Jones, many of the leading academics – past and present at CRU – are also named on the spreadsheet, including Prof Trevor Davies, who is now pro-vice-chancellor at UEA but who once headed up the CRU.

Professor Ross McKitrick, visiting professor of environmental economics at the University of Buckingham and an arch sceptic who was subject of some of the leaked emails, said: "Climate sceptics are always accused of taking money from industry but it is now clear the money is on the other side.

"There is a huge amount of money on the global warming side. Institutions like the CRU have a very large budget but that would disappear if global warming ceased to exist."


I think this is a tempest in an environmental teapot and in today's NY Times, the Public Editor, Clark Hoyt, says about the same thing. Yes, it's a story. A story about the University of East Anglia. Not exactly frontpage stuff, folks. Not exactly rocking the Earth about what UN Commissions, NASA scientists, and the overwhelming majority of reputable folks who study such things have made clear already.

I think Hoyt put it best when he wrote, "The biggest question is what the ('Climategate') messages amount to — an embarrassing revelation that scientists can be petty and defensive and even cheat around the edges, or a major scandal that undercuts the scientific premise for global warming. The former is a story. The latter is a huge story. And the answer is tied up in complex science that is difficult even for experts to understand, and in politics in which passionate sides have been taken, sometimes regardless of the facts...

I think The Times has handled Climategate appropriately — a story, not a three-alarm story."

This affair shows that academics at this university need to be questioned, not that global warming is a hoax. That's junk. The Washington Post should be embarrassed to suggest otherwise by its placement of a minor academic scandal on page 1.


And here's a so-called Climate Scientist getting all pms snippy because a blogger isn't taking things seriously enough and is no longer functioning as said "scientist's" private mouthpiece:

Copenhagen prostitutes?
Climate prostitutes?
Shame on you for this gutter reportage.
This is the second time this week I have written you thereon, the first about giving space in your blog to the Pielkes.
The vibe that I am getting from here, there and everywhere is that your reportage is very worrisome to most climate scientists.
Of course, your blog is your blog.
But, I sense that you are about to experience the 'Big Cutoff' from those of us who believe we can no longer trust you, me included.
Copenhagen prostitutes?
Unbelievable and unacceptable.
What are you doing and why?

So what so annoyed Schlesinger? Here's Revkin's offending blog post, which among other things passes along the amusing story of Copenhagen prostitutes offering free sex to climate campaigners (I'll leave to Mark Steyn the suitable lip gloss on this story), along with some other news items that the climate campaigners don't want reported. Judge for yourself if this constitutes "gutter reportage" and deserves censure from the climate science community.


It's a New York Times blogger that the "scientist" is whinging to, an Andrew Revkin. Ever heard of him?


What's even more ridiculous is those who bury their heads in the sand when there is written proof that they have been hoodwinked. Global warming my arse. Sunspots... now that's a story that one can believe. Let the truth set us free.

Global warming = man made conditions = more lies to the gullible masses.


Global warming is all about a group of pseudo-scientists wanting to protect their funding for their false "scientific" results.

All this reminds me of how the MSM seems to function today with it's selective reporting. These "scientists" have done a disservice to all scientists who are supposed to report truthfully on their observations, not make things up as they go along to fit their preconceived beliefs.

The link above goes to a petition that has been signed by over 31,000 American scientists who dispute the idea humans are the reason for which any disruption that may occur in the earth's climate.


Here is a breakdown of those who have signed the petition that I linked above. Their names and educational degrees which the possess are found in the link. So you see, there really is no "consensus" on this. Personally, I believe in the sunspot theory on global warming (even though the earth actually cooled since 1998) which presumes that sunspot activity is what affects the earth's climate. And from the link, there are scientists who believe that "there is good scientific evidence that increased atmoshperic carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful".

Qualifications of Signers

Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,714 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.

Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.

1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,804 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,812 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

4. Chemistry includes 4,821 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,965 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

7. Engineering and general science includes 10,103 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers’ educations.

Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,804)

1. Atmosphere (579)

I) Atmospheric Science (112)
II) Climatology (39)
III) Meteorology (343)
IV) Astronomy (59)
V) Astrophysics (26)

2. Earth (2,239)

I) Earth Science (94)
II) Geochemistry (63)
III) Geology (1,683)
IV) Geophysics (341)
V) Geoscience (36)
VI) Hydrology (22)

3. Environment (986)

I) Environmental Engineering (487)
II) Environmental Science (253)
III) Forestry (163)
IV) Oceanography (83)

Computers & Math (935)

1. Computer Science (242)

2. Math (693)

I) Mathematics (581)
II) Statistics (112)

Physics & Aerospace (5,812)

1. Physics (5,225)

I) Physics (2,365)
II) Nuclear Engineering (223)
III) Mechanical Engineering (2,637)

2. Aerospace Engineering (587)

Chemistry (4,821)

1. Chemistry (3,128)

2. Chemical Engineering (1,693)

Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,965)

1. Biochemistry (744)

I) Biochemistry (676)
II) Biophysics (68)

2. Biology (1,438)

I) Biology (1,049)
II) Ecology (76)
III) Entomology (59)
IV) Zoology (149)
V) Animal Science (105)

3. Agriculture (783)

I) Agricultural Science (296)
II) Agricultural Engineering (114)
III) Plant Science (292)
IV) Food Science (81)

Medicine (3,046)

1. Medical Science (719)

2. Medicine (2,327)

General Engineering & General Science (10,103)

1. General Engineering (9,834)

I) Engineering (7,281)
II) Electrical Engineering (2,169)
III) Metallurgy (384)

2. General Science (269)


One more link concerning global warming.

"At December’s [2008] U.N. Global Warming conference in Poznan, Poland, 650 of the world’s top climatologists stood up and said man-made global warming is a media generated myth without basis. Said climatologist Dr. David Gee, Chairman of the International Geological Congress, ‘For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?’



Believe it or not, [url=]Vibram Fivefingers[/url] has changed human lifestyle. If you have ever saw five finger shoes, you may feel it is in a strange looking, however, it begin the world of barefoot running, which targeted to product more health and comfort to people’s health. As opposited to standard [url=]vibram fivefingers sale[/url] shoes, what the five finger shoes do is to make footwear more light and with more agility.
Nowadays, purchase [url=]Five finger shoes[/url] is come to be a style online. No matter how chilly it is, persons can nevertheless operate with this fashionable shoes, this shoe is as opposed to standard shoes, it may highest totally free your ft and unlimit your speed. The only factor you have to do is just running [url=]Cheap Five Finger Shoes[/url], presist morning by day, also it has spported by stientist.A flexible, thin-soled, [url=]Discount fivefinger shoes[/url] that is shaped like a foot is extra barefoot-like than an inflexible conventional operating shoe having a thick midsole. A thinner [url=]vibram fingers[/url], versatile single puts your foot closer towards the ground, carries a much better street really feel and is also extra barefoot-like.
First, of course, it capabilities five impartial [url=]Vibram FiveFingers Kso[/url], and distinct from most on the preferred will toe footwear are not divided in this type of shoes, the toe on the cellular room is not great, through the footwear on the room [url=]vibram fivefingers Bikila[/url] constraints, The part of outside forces, most on the force can be most concentrated with the Bigfoot thumb.Peopole can be scared through the odd looks of [url=]Vibram FiveFingers SPEED[/url]. However, soon after check and medical doctors annouance, Vibram 5 Fingers Flow eople began to accept this odd footwear as wellbeing shoes. From barefoot running, persons can advantage extra in barefoot operating [url=]Vibram FiveFingers Sprint[/url].

forum watches

Thanks for all of the hard work on this web site. I admit, I have not been on this website in a long time, however it was joy to find it again. It is such an important topic and ignored by so many, even professionals! I do enjoy writing but it just seems like the first 10 to 15 minutes are lost simply just trying to figure out how to begin.

The comments to this entry are closed.