There has been so much confusion about the stolen emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, but few have read the million words as a whole. They show that climate scientists are human, but they don’t undercut the science itself. For example, one of the much quoted 1999 emails talks about a “trick” in adding data to a graph. What was the trick? Using actual, measured air temperature data instead of inferences from tree rings.
Associated Press had three or four reporters read every word of the emails. Their analysis is here. And here is one from Constructionomics.
Meanwhile, the Economist has helpfully pointed out that emission cuts would cost the world economy only about 20% of what we just spent bailing out banks. The central battle is not about whether to cut emissions, and not even so much about how much, but over who will pay.
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
It's easy enough to get the emails and the other files. A firsthand look will give you the right to draw a conclusion. There are 1073 text files, so it will take a while. Interestingly, I was unable to cherry pick anything that wasn't about fudging, faking, supressing dissent, ousting editors, etc.
It didn't take thousands of scientists to conspire- it only took a handful to fake the data everybody else relied on.
The person who deserves the Pulitzer Prize for investigative journalism is Steve McIntyre at http://climateaudit.org/ where dissection of the details is being done. The trick was to HIDE.
Is there a synonym for the word HIDE than means anything other than HIDE?
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/arch… the apocalyptics were disgusting people for a long time over at IPCC. note Pielke in the old posts, too.
If you ask a scientist why nothing can move faster than the speed of light, he doesn’t tell you a terrible story about how koala bears will die if you don’t believe the theory is right, does he?
The UN served this to the children of the world:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_9mjBUSDng
This makes me very angry.
CO2 is not a pollutant nor will the climate be affected by 40 trillion dollars worth of lightweight, highly reflective Precautionary Headgear guaranteed to keep you cool in any weather. What's the benefit of a multi-trillion dollar carbon derivatives bubble?
From an 11 year old:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_G_-SdAN04 home schooled, I’ll bet a dollar.
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hocke… best aggregation (with reference links)
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/smoking-guns-acr… individual plots of raw australian data. more fraud revealed.
She deserves the Pulitzer too.
Norman Davies on propaganda
Five Rules of Propaganda:
1) endless repetition, repeating the same messages over and over with different variations and combinations
2. Disfiguration: discrediting the opposition with slander and crude parodies
3. Unanimity: presenting your point of view as if every right headed person agrees with it while smearing those who doubt it using appeals of famous people, experts and so called consensus; hiding/ excluding others from the underlying basis / information of your position.
4. Transfusion: manipulating the prevailing values of the public to your own advantage
5. Simplification: reducing all facts into a comparison between ‘good and evil’ and ‘friends and enemies’
What the fellows at East Anglia and elsewhere were doing was not science.
When you actually put your own eyes on the raw data, you see what you see.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/antarctica_white_…
Scratch the surface and global warming is a fraud to the bone.
It is Mann made.
Jones ’stepped aside’, Mann ‘under investigation, Gore cancels Copenhagen speech, APA petition demands repudiation of the fraud, senators investigating on the hill…
The emails and programmer’s notes reveal the vast context of ten years of intellectual corruption. They were not doing science- they were disgracing it.
The globe has been getting warmer. That’s why you can plant corn in Iowa and wheat in Kansas and why Canadians frolic in the snow. The glaciers melted. I’ll have more of that, please.
The IPCC will investigate itself.
Already 1700 subjects (scientists) have been compelled to sign a loyalty oath affirming the outcome of it in advance of its completion, so you may be sure consensus will emerge in due course.
Meanwhile, the world turns without their help or hindrance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole…
A confluence of interest.