Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The expanding scandal - NOAA and NASA nailed
#1
Jane Jamison of Uncoverage.net reports:

Climate-gate part II begins now: The scientists with Icecap.us website announced findings late last week that not only was the CRU involved in producing fraudulent weather data, but two United States agencies, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), have also been falsifying climate reports for years. NOAA, the report concludes, is actually "ground-zero" for the fraud of global warming, not the East Anglia Institute.


[i]Climate researchers have discovered that government researchers improperly manipulated data in order to claim 2005 as "THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD."

In a new report supported by SPPI, computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo discovered extensive manipulation of the temperature data by the U.S. Government's National Climate Data Center (NCDC) in Asheville, North Carolina Smith and D'Aleo accuse these centers of manipulating temperature data to give the appearance of warmer temperatures than actually occurred by trimming the number and location of weather observation stations and then ‘adjusting the data in ways that increase the apparent warming.


The complete article with links is at:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010...redux.html
Reply
#2
Will the main stream media report on this and finally recognize that they've been been duped for years and manipulated into perpetuating the fraud?
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!


Reply
#3
(01-17-2010, 12:17 PM)JohnWho Wrote: Will the main stream media report on this and finally recognize that they've been been duped for years and manipulated into perpetuating the fraud?

Their failure to report it is why they are losing circulation and viewers.I long ago stopped watching channel news and read newspapers because they are full of slanted ideological crap.

The internet tself is slowly bypassing the "journalists" by reporting it on their own in blogs.

Why spend the $$$ to read a biased edited version when you can get a more raw version through the blogs?
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#4
JohnWHo--

They won't report it because:

1.they are too heavily invested in pushing AGW. To admit otherwise would mean they would have to justify years of presenting mis-information and years of failing to do any real investigative reporting on the issue - don't hold your breath

2. they would make Obama look like even more of a fool since he is a True Believer who can't admit he is wrong, and Obama's henchman would not allow it

3. it would put the final nail in the coffin of Cap and Trade and the Obama administration, their great hope for a "fairer" world (aka Socialism), would be neutered

4. Facts don't matter. Ideology is the driving force where the ends, Socialism and the re-distribution of wealth, justify the means- lying, mis-representing, etc.
Reply
#5
(01-17-2010, 03:43 PM)ajmplanner Wrote: JohnWHo--

They won't report it because:

1.they are too heavily invested in pushing AGW. To admit otherwise would mean they would have to justify years of presenting mis-information and years of failing to do any real investigative reporting on the issue - don't hold your breath

2. they would make Obama look like even more of a fool since he is a True Believer who can't admit he is wrong, and Obama's henchman would not allow it

3. it would put the final nail in the coffin of Cap and Trade and the Obama administration, their great hope for a "fairer" world (aka Socialism), would be neutered

4. Facts don't matter. Ideology is the driving force where the ends, Socialism and the re-distribution of wealth, justify the means- lying, mis-representing, etc.

Just in case you may have missed it, this may shed some (read a lot of) light.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_daH9I42lH4

Saul Alinsky's (he wrote the book Rules for Radicals) tactics are,

Do not talk about the facts, but do -

1) Pick the target.

2) Freeze it.

3) Personalise it.

4) Polarise it.

Professor Obama used to teach Saul Alinsky........

I have posted it in the video section of the forum.

http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...d-459.html
Never heard of Saul Alinsky ? Yes you have...
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#6
A good summary of the NASA and NOAA temperature data "adjustments" just appeared in

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/c...he_ti.html

These people must be held accountable.
Reply
#7
Looks like WUWT likes the article, too:

WUWT - American Thinker on CRU, GISS, and Climategate

It should be required reading for the EPA.

Smile
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!


Reply
#8
What a mess it is,but we have been suspicious for a while.

The errors and unexplained changes are legion,thus we should not be surprised that NASA/GISS and NOAA have been messing around with the data too.

Shy
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#9
Friends:

The following is the cover note of a Submission I have sent to the UK Parliament's Slect Committee on Science and Technology that intends to investigate Climategate.

Richard

****************

In a message dated 23/01/2010 00:30:00 GMT Standard Time, RichardSCourtney@aol.com writes:

Dear Members of the Science and Technology Committee:

Please find the attached copy with Appendices of my Submission to your "Investigation of the unauthorised publication of data, emails and documents relating to the work of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA)".

I will post a hard copy to you as your press release announces is required.

My Declaration of Interests is implicit in my submission: i.e.

(a) I resent having had a scientific paper blocked from publication by nefarious method
and
(b) one of the emails hacked (?) from the CRU was from me and it demonstrates that I complained about the 'blocking'.

However, my "Interests" are trivial in comparison to the importance of the substantive point of my submission: viz.

The email demonstrates that 6 years ago the self-titled ‘Team’ knew the estimates of average global temperature (mean global temperature, MGT) were worthless and they acted to prevent publication of proof of this.

Regards

Richard S Courtney

88 Longfield
Falmouth
Cornwall
TR11 4SL
United Kingdom
Reply
#10
(01-23-2010, 04:02 AM)Richard S Courtney. Wrote: The email demonstrates that 6 years ago the self-titled ‘Team’ knew the estimates of average global temperature (mean global temperature, MGT) were worthless and they acted to prevent publication of proof of this.

Almost unbelievable, isn't it?

It is no wonder the FOI requests were not fulfilled.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!


Reply
#11
The last line seems appropriate.....

http://dingo.care-mail.com/cards/flash/5409/galaxy.swf
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#12
Facts don't matter--

In the February issue of Scientific American, "News Scan" section, an article by David Biello has appeared titled

"Negating "Climategate"" with subtitle "Copenhagen talks and climate science survive stolen e-mail debacle"

Tidbits:

"...huge body of data pointing to humanity's effect on climate, and for most negotiators, the weight of that evidence seems to have crushed any doubt they may have felt in the wake of the 1000 plus emails and computer code stolen...."

"...nothing in the stolen material undermines the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and that humans are to blame"

"[climate change]... rests on numerous lines of evidence. They include melting ice sheets, retreating glaciers, rising sea levels, and earlier onset of spring, not to mention higher average global temperatures"

" The stolen emails may ultimately provide a sociological window into the climate science comunity. " This is a record of how science is actually done," notes Goddard's Gavin Schmidt"

So I guess lying, prevention of the publication of opposing points of view, destroyong data, and manipulating data to get the result you want is simply a "sociological" issue. Let's get some psychologists to these guys to straighten them out!

I am writing a letter to the editor and I hope others will do the same. Write to

editors@sciam.com

or post directly at http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciammag
Reply
#13
I notice that article is saying that proof of warming is the same thing as proof of anthropogenic warming.

No wonder they think "the science is settled" if that's all they think they need.
Here's what I emailed them and posted in the comments section:

"The detection of climate change, and its attribution to human causes, rests on numerous lines of evidence.” They include melting ice sheets, retreating glaciers, rising sea levels and earlier onset of spring, not to mention higher average global temperatures."

All these things support climate change, but not "its attribution to human causes". Proof of warming is not the same thing as proof of anthropogenic warming. No wonder some claim the science is settled if that's all the proof they think they need.

"Some of the kerfuffle rests on a misreading of the e-mails’ wording. For example, “trick” in one message actually describes a decision to use observed temperatures rather than stand-in data inferred from tree rings. Instead of implying deception, the word itself in science often refers to a strategy to solve a problem."

You didn't mention the "problem". That was when the tree ring proxies didn't behave the way they wanted them to. At that point, it was assumed the tree rings were wrong and measured temps were substituted. You'll note there was no questioning the accuracy of the tree rings when they showed what the scientists in question WANTED them to show. (i.e. diminishing the Medieval Warm Period) This selective skepticism of the tree rings is what raises suspicions.

"Even those scientific papers specifically challenged by the e-mails—one message vowed to keep them out of a report by the United Nations’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is”—nonetheless made it into the most recent IPCC report."

Well that certainly makes us feel better that that particular paper managed to overcome efforts to suppress it. So that means there isn't a problem, right?

"The stolen e-mails may ultimately provide a sociological window into the climate science community. “This is a record of how science is actually done,” notes Goddard’s Gavin A. Schmidt. Historians will see “that scientists are human and how science progresses despite human failings. They’ll see why science as an enterprise works despite the fact that scientists aren’t perfect.”

And yet skeptics are told to be silent and completely trust imperfect individuals who are telling them they have to dramatically alter the way they live their lives.

"Science has already played its role” in the climate debate, explains Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC. After all, IPCC authors had to achieve consensus with more than 190 countries as well as publicly respond to each comment on the draft documents. “Unfortunately, the [climate] negotiations are becoming solely political,” Pachauri laments."

Ok...Pachauri claims the role of science is done, then complains the issue is becoming solely political. Did he leave out the fact that he heads a political body which just happens to be in charge of this issue?

Oh...he meant he didn't want politics that he doesn't agree with! That certainly sounds like something a politician would say.
Reply
#14
(01-29-2010, 09:16 AM)HarpoSpoke Wrote: I notice that article is saying that proof of warming is the same thing as proof of anthropogenic warming.

No wonder they think "the science is settled" if that's all they think they need
Here's what I emailed them and posted in the comments section:

"The detection of climate change, and its attribution to human causes, rests on numerous lines of evidence.” They include melting ice sheets, retreating glaciers, rising sea levels and earlier onset of spring, not to mention higher average global temperatures."

And now but a few days later,

"The detection of climate change, and its attribution to human causes, rests on numerous lines of evidence.”
They include melting ice sheets, Now known to be false - Arctic sea ice has recovered and there were "problems" with the instruments and algorithms used. Jonathan Drake paper
retreating glaciers, Now known to be false, merely based on a rumour and 300 year misinterpretation. Glaciergate
rising sea levels and Now known to be false, no increase in rate of recovery from the little ice age. Apologies, I forget off hand who did that paper.
earlier onset of spring, Now known to be false - spring 2009 was when ? AND when was spring in the 1930s. ?
not to mention higher average global temperatures. Now the date used is known to be false, and deliberately falsified. CRU emails / codes
"
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#15
Harpospoke:

Quote:I notice that article is saying that proof of warming is the same thing as proof of anthropogenic warming.

No wonder they think "the science is settled" if that's all they think they need.

Since it has been cooling since 2001,therefore CO2 has lost it's magic.

I think that settles it.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#16
S. Fred Singer comments on climategate and the CRU here:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/c...ewash.html
Reply
#17
Another good article on Climategate and the results of the CRU investigation by the British Parliament:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/t...ation.html
Reply
#18
(04-29-2010, 05:02 AM)ajmplanner Wrote: Another good article on Climategate and the results of the CRU investigation by the British Parliament:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/t...ation.html

Yep, it all boils down to integrity.
Would be a national wonder if the British Parliament applied the concept to themselves.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#19
Below is a link to a recent video recording of a presentation ( 4/16/10) that is, I believe, is the most thorough explanation (at least for me!) of why the climategate emails are so damning and how surface temperature data has been manipulated to produce desired warming results. It is rather long, about 45 minutes, but well worth the time to get a real understanding of what has been going on behind the closed science doors of Mann et al. A lot of the information that we have been reading about bogus data and those pesky emails is distilled and well organized into very comprehensive and understandable presentation. ( Found this on the ICECAP website, http://www.icecap.us/)

"Cooler Heads Coalition congressional briefing on the science and politics of the "Climategate" scandal. Featuring presentations by George Mason University Distinguished Senior Fellow Pat Michaels and International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project (ICECAP) Executive Director Joseph D'Aleo. "

http://www.blip.tv/file/3539174
Reply
#20
"Most" people will "very likely" find the above video a very understandable explanation of what climategate was ACTUALLY about.
("Most" = more than 50%, "very likely" = 90 to 99%)

Thank you for posting, a brilliant, clear, easily understandable presentation and watchable video.

I have been waiting for someone with the appropriate computer code and statistics knowledge and understanding to go through the CRU / Harry read me files,
that is where the fraud will be exposed for what it is.
By who, when, and how much. - and errr, their "reasons" for "why" the adjustments were made....

NB - Was Al phoning to ask Joe for a debate ? ..... LOL.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)