Climatologists Baffled by Warming Stand Still; Researchers Efforts to 'Hide Temp Decline' Exposed by Hacker; Gore Photoshops to Sell Global Warming
Saturday, November 21, 2009 at 02:40AM Climatologists are stumped by the global warming stand-still as temperatures stopped rising over the past 10 years and the credibility of their scientific methods are in question:
Not much is happening with global warming at the moment. The Earth’s average temperatures have stopped climbing since the beginning of the millennium, and it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year.
Ironically, climate change appears to have stalled in the run-up to the upcoming world summit in the Danish capital, where thousands of politicians, bureaucrats, scientists, business leaders and environmental activists plan to negotiate a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Billions of euros are at stake in the negotiations.
Oops, that’s embarrassing.
Meanwhile, hackers broke into the data base of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit revealing e-mail correspondence between pro-global warming researchers showing a overt attempt to “hide the decline” in global temperatures over the past several decades.
Phil Jones, head of the Climate Research Unit, wrote an e-mail to colleagues about the deceptive trick:
From: Phil Jones
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.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. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
PhilProf. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
Jones now says about the controversial “hide the decline” comment from an e-mail he wrote in 1999 that there was no intention to mislead, but he had “no idea” what he meant by those words.
Hmmmm….
Now for comic relief, here’s our resident climate alarmist Al Gore. “With Hurricanes at a 30 Year Low, Gore Turns to Photoshop” for the cover of his new book, Our Choice; A Plan To Solve The Climate Crisis.Below is Algore’s book cover open.
Ryan Maue, a hurrican expert from Florida State University, opened the cover and took a front and back photo with his cell phone and had this to say about the Photoshopping:
The cover opens and closes half and half — so you only see one hurricane…as in the press release photo or the one on Amazon.
But this is the real picture sequence from the book which I looked at Borders today and took cell-phone pictures, original (before the retouching by some “artist”) Note all of the Arctic ice and the size of the Florida Peninsula…
A midget Southern Hemisphere cyclone is off the coast of Florida, another hurricane is sitting on the equator off the coast of Peru — and the Arctic Ice is gone (perhaps it is summer) and the Florida Peninsula is half gone
There are other differences I am sure you can find — but the hurricanes are just nonsense…
Ryan
Also note that the hurricane by Florida is spinning in the wrong direction, Cuba has completely disappeared meaning the water level has risen over 6,000 feet…. can you find any other errors? There are more.
Has it really come to this?
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (23)
It looks like half of Greenland is under water, as well as the southern third or so of Alaska. It also looks like there is no need for a Panama Canal any more. These guys are very imaginative... and dare I say it: desperate!
(:D) Best regards
I just noticed too that part of Texas and the Baja peninsula appear to be missing. No fear mongering there, eh?
Its worth noting that the Apocalypse of St. John (the Book of Revelation) recognizes no significant man-made disasters in the judgment of the earth but rather the acts of God through his angelic messengers. It is not man's environmental activity that brings the wrath of God (that would impugn God Himself if it were possible) but man's moral unworthiness.
Environmentalists are pagan in every pseudo-science postulation while God's sovereign reign over nature garauntees nature's resilience and durability. "The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof." Psalm 24:1
Good calls, Hawkeye.
I can't see New Zealand from this photo, but I can only imagine it's underwater. THIS IS A TRAVESTY!!
I am not surprised these scientists faked global warming data. I have believed all along that global warming is a hoax. One of the scientists at the CRU, Michael Mann, is the one who “created” the now discredited hockey stick graph. The same Mike referenced in the email. Get the popcorn; this is going to be good.
My father was sucked in by the conspiracy, he is now convinced that temps go in cycles and Gore is lying to promote cap and trade for which he is a heavy investor. Gore talks the talk but personally does not walk the walk.
...and the Florida Peninsula is half gone...I just noticed too that part of Texas...appear(s) to be missing.
Maybe it's a manifestation of the wrath of Gore, instigated by the 2000 election. I understand that Gore's next movie will be entitled AN INCONVENIENT HANGING CHAD.
One correction, but I don't have the links handy. It was a mole inside the center rather than an actual hack.
The only thing I'm wondering right now is where are all those panic button libs who called us all stupid and worse whenever we debated the existence of global warming?
I'd dearly love to be able to tell them, "I told you so." Of course they'll just make excuses for it.
Gore has to keep pushing the date of destruction back. I still feel that anything we can do to improve the environment we should do.
Mike, the big issue is, it's not us. Everybody is trying to blame it on our cars, etc.etc. but we're not really that big a producer of anything than other countries. China, for instance, is far worse than we are and if you compare us population wise to other countries we'd be similar or lower by ratio. There are more of us here than other western countries and that does make a difference when you look at totals.
Anything more that gets done here will spell the death of the country economically for very little reason. We cannot live on consumerism alone.
Californi, for instance, feels the effects from China. It's not California causing their problems with air quality and the like. The tradewinds from China blow China's pollution straight at the west coast. If China does nothing and that seems to be its stance, there is absolutely nothing that can be done for California that is going to make a hill of beans difference.
We can bankrupt ourselves into oblivion and it won't make a difference.
Besides, if all this is true and it seems it is, there could be RICO issues in store for the perpetrators of the hoax.
Greenpeace is already on my hit list for other stupidities they've committed. This will add just one more to the list. But Al Gore can kiss his billions goodbye if RICO statutes are indeed involved.
Is San Francisco gone? Oh please, let San Francisco be gone...
I don't doubt that Gore is one of the main characters behind this fraud. He has magnesium mines that were leaching into the water supply. He owns a big chunk of Occidental Petroleum stock. His light bill is $3000.00 a month. Even the Chinese are aware that they are among the worst polluters and American companies took advantage of the lax rules there at first. Now you can barely breathe in Bejing. Unregulated corporations will destroy the earth regardless of if Global warming is a hoax or not. I don't agree that we should give our standard of living because Al Gore is an ego driven despot want to be, and submit to the latest version of Communism.
Of course if Cuba is gone so would Florida and many other places. Al is desperate.
I'm not suggesting we go backwards to pre-cleanup standards... well, at least not completely. All I'm saying is that more, which is what the government is talking about, isn't going to help anybody in this country, except those who get rich off the fraud.
The goal- no, the requirement for existence of big government is to remove as much money as possible from the people. The best and least painful way to do this is to convince the people of a necessity. Remember what Rahm Emanuel said?
But what do you do when a crisis doesn't exist? Why, you create on, of course. Remember the story of the glass shop owner whose business was failing? He created a crisis by covertly breaking the windows of fellow business owners.So, as we muddle through the intricacies of Global Warming, more and more evidence is brought to light, exposing the fallacy of man affecting global climate change. Interestingly, when enough information is presented, global warming converts don't change their minds, they just disengage and stop thinking about it.
I know the US is cleaner than it was in the 1970's. What these chuckleheads are talking about is global control.
Of course scientists have overstated the case for global warming, but the question is by how much. Your assumption is that because there is some exaggeration, the whole phenomenon is fraudulent.
My judgement is that the case for warming is very strong, but if they presented even the strong case that there is in a dry scientific way the politicians would underestimate it, using the kind of reasoning that claims that an 85-90% chance of disaster calls for only a fractional response (see the fishing stock quotas that the politicians have negotiated, vs the scientific advice to just stop fishing certain stocks altogether). It is because politicians do not understand data the same way that scientists do that scientists are pretty much forced into exaggeration.
It is unfortunate.
Jez,
Don't you find it compelling that as we forge on, the only evidence that seems to be coming to light is evidence that detracts from the legitimacy of Global warming rather than supporting it? I mean even Scientists who are now acknowledging the flaws in their arguments have renamed the issue 'Climate Change'.
We have identified several reasons why one would attempt to deceive the American people, but they all lead back to money; more specifically, the departure of money from our pockets for the benefit of the collective. The problem created is a loss of buying power. And when we lose buying power, we lose freedom and liberty to direct our own future; and that is what Cap and Trade threatens to take from every US citizen.
So when we lose our buying power, we borrow to regain control; only in doing so, we become nothing more than indentured slaves to the lender, forfeiting our freedom and liberty forever.
Global warming isn't about the planet; it's about controlling the purse strings of America.
Of course scientists have overstated the case for global warming, but the question is by how much. Your assumption is that because there is some exaggeration, the whole phenomenon is fraudulent. Jez
Break it down. I don't even think there is a case. I am against pollution, but forcing people to comply with changes they don't buy into will not make for a compelling argument, especially when the messenger is so fake they have to give him a Nobel Prize to help him appear legit.
Gary, it's not compelling because it's not the case. The only evidence reported by politically motivated outlets detract from AGW, but I don't find cherry picking compelling.
"Climate change" is a choice of phrase used to emphasise the fact that while global average temperatures are predicted to rise, some regions might get colder (the UK is a candidate for this).
Sure so if the earth gets colder we are in trouble as well, except we know that there is nothing we can really do about that. So if we go to the warming concept we can control peoples behavior. Now we are pretty sure that we have had a long cooling trend and that in and of itself scares me more.
What cooling trend?
If you look at the methods they used to tease out a 1 degree rise over the last century, you can see that it couldn't be legitimate. Those data sets are just too messy and plagued with error sources to do that. Even the best industrial measurement devices have difficulty in achieving a 1 degree accuracy over time. How are we to believe it can be done, given decades of variability in data collection... like manual data recording, relocated stations, removed stations, heat island effects, etc.
And so they went to "predictive" computer models to bolster the case. The climate is a mathematically chaotic system. Inherently beyond prediction.