The Greatest Scientific Scandal of All Time
BREAKING NEWS
"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
Thomas Jefferson (1743—1826)
What we are faced with is a tyranny, world wide, over the mind and body of man, and it is the duty of every red blooded United
States citizen to oppose with every fiber of his being what is being done ... by this Administration to try and sign away your Constitution
at Copenhagen."
Lord Christopher Monckton November 28, 2009
Alexandria, VA – For the fourteenth straight day, the three broadcast networks have failed to report on the great and growing ClimateGate scandal on their weekday morning or evening news programs. How to explain this?
Five-Year Average Global Temperature Anomalies from 1880 to 2006. By: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center 
The story of manmade global warming is over. In reality it never existed except in the minds and hearts of grant-seeking scientists and academics, ratings-obsessed television networks and their misinformed viewers and opportunistic eco-activists.
That said, climate change is real. The earth has been coming out of a 450-year cold era known as the "Little Ice Age"
since it bottomed out in the late 1600s. Hundreds of studies have verified the existence of this cold period. The United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tried to erase the climate history of the last 1,000 years in its 2001 report.
They replaced all the peer-reviewed studies of past climate with one that fit their needs. The now-discredited "hockey stick"
graph showed virtually no significant change in temperature of the world over the last 1,000 years.
Conveniently, the graph then showed a rapid and abrupt increase in global temperature during the last 100 years. This is,
of course, due to our sin of burning fossil fuels and stoking the fires of global warming.
Climate change has mutated from a debate into a catechism. With so much at stake,
says Fraser Nelson, can we afford to dispense with rational argument?
It normally falls to The Spectator to throw a rock into
the pond of complacency. On global warming, we seek to be the still, small voice of calm. As Maurizio Morabito says on page XIII, the truth about global warming is that our understanding of it is in its infancy. Before we tax the poor out of the sky and off the roads, before we slow the world’s economy in a way that will condemn millions to poverty, we should ask just what all this will achieve. Ask precisely where the doubts are. Because after reading the views of the scientists below, no one can argue that the debate is over.
MUST SEE editorial on the stench of the politicalization of climate science:
Even the LA Times notes that the MSM has been ignoring this story:
The television news-watching world in America has not learned much about the so-called Climategate scandal because it has not really been mentioned on the air except for a notorious cable news channel named for a three-lettered, wily, wild animal that often seems to revel in debunking liberal shibboleths.
Network news programs have been far more concerned with the obviously more important White House party-crasher story involving a couple of formally-dressed phonies.
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their
own theories and beliefs about global warming. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s Very Likely. Just 26% say it’s
not very or not at all likely that some scientists falsified data.
This skepticism does not appear to be the result of the recent disclosure of e-mails confirming such data falsification
as part of the so-called "Climategate" scandal. Just 20% of Americans say they’ve followed news reports
about those e-mails Very Closely, while another 29% have followed them Somewhat Closely.
UK astrophysicist Piers Corbyn, of the long range solar forecast group Weather Action, declared that the ClimateGate revelations have rendered
man-made global warming fears "false."
(F)rom what I’ve read in blogsphere, the e-mails did not reveal anything I didn’t think was happening anyway (though it may help the general public get a glimpse of that)....
An editor of one of the more prominent journals wrote a colleague of mine that ”any paper which doesn’t support the anthropogenic GHG theory is politically motivated, and therefore has to be rejected”.
There are many more examples. As I said, these e-mails do not surprise me. They just provide a window to whatever I had thought was happening anyway.
From Polular Mechanics April 1950 - "All over the world glaciers are receding. Professor Kimble points out that some are melting so fast
that they will disappear in a few more decades under present conditions." Now think about this. The global warming dogma is that warming has continued at a
much higher rate in the many decades that followed this article. Yet the glaciers are still here, six decades after these dire predictions!
Yet another example of the ‘research’ masquerading as science that is used to reinforce the man-made
global warming fraud. One of the difficulties the green zealots have had is that Antarctica has been not warming but cooling,
with the extent of its ice reaching record levels. A few weeks ago, a study led by Professor Eric Steig caused some excitement
by claiming that actually West Antarctica was warming so much that it more than made up for the cooling in East Antarctica.
Warning bells should have sounded when Steig said
What we did is interpolate carefully instead of just using the back of an envelope.
To those of us who have been following this scam for the past two decades, 'interpolate carefully' makes us suck our teeth.
And so it has proved. Various scientists immediately spotted the flaw in Steig’s methodology of combining satellite evidence since 1979 with
temperature readings from surface weather stations. The flaw they identified was that, since Antarctica has so few weather stations,
the computer Steig used was programmed to guess what data they would have produced had such stations existed. In other words, the
findings that caused such excitement were based on data that had been made up.
December 01, 2009
Britain's University of East Anglia announced today that its director of the prestigious Climate Research Unit is "stepping down"
while an investigation is conducted into his research and publications on climate change. Phil Jones, who was at the heart of
the emails released last week that shook the scientific world and cast doubt about the validity of the data that supports the idea
that the earth is warming, was unavailable for immediate comment.
Meanwhile, Penn State University in the United States announced yesterday (11-29-09) that it is launching an investigation into Michael Mann, another principal in the hacked email scandal, should be further investigated for his role in distorting climate change data. "I'm very happy they're doing it," Mann said. University officials would not give an expected date for a decision, saying that it could take "quite some time."
President Obama's climate czar, Carol M. Browner, and White House spokesman Robert Gibbs might think that Climate-gate is a nonevent, but on Monday Pennsylvania State University announced that it was launching an investigation into the academic conduct of Michael Mann, the school's Director of the Earth System Science Center. And Tuesday, Phil Jones, the director of the Climatic Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia, announced that he would stand aside as director while his university conducted an investigation.
Dozens of researchers at other institutions could soon face similar investigations. While Dr. Jones has been the center of much of the discussion because the e-mails were obtained from the server at his university, Mann is named in about 270 of the over 1,000 e-mails, many of which detail disturbing and improper academic behavior.
By L. Brent Bozell III Sunday, November 29, 2009
Here's a dirty little secret about The New York Times: It likes to leak things. Important things.
Things that change the course of the public conversation. From the Pentagon Papers to the ruined terrorist-surveillance programs of the Bush era, The Times routinely has found that secrecy is a danger and sunlight is a disinfectant.
Until now. A troublesome hacker recently released e-mails going to and from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in Britain -- e-mails that exposed how the "scientific experts" cited so often by the media on global warming are guilty of crude political talk, attempts at censoring opponents and twisting scientific data to support their policy agenda.
The e-mails prove just how dishonest this left-wing global warming agenda truly is. And now suddenly, The New York Times has found religion and won't publish these private e-mails.
When I discovered that Google was censoring the word "climategate" from their autocompletion suggestion list, I told everyone to move over to
Bing because they were not censoring that word. Well, now they are. I guess this should not be a big surprise – Microsoft is part of the
Establishment that has invested untold billions in the AGW scam. And it has always been a bit behind the curve on things relating to
the internet. So I guess they were just asleep at the wheel when the scandal broke. Now they are inline with Google and Al Gore and the MSM in the
futile effort to coverup the greatest scientific scandal in the history of the world.
By JOHN TIERNEY
Published: November 30, 2009
If you have not delved into the thousands of e-mail messages and files hacked from the computers of British climate scientists,
let me give you the closest thing to an executive summary. It is taken from a file slugged HARRY_READ_ME, which is the log of
a computer expert’s long struggle to make sense of a database of historical temperatures. Here is Harry’s summary of the situation:
Aarrggghhh!
That cry, in various spellings, is a motif throughout the log as Harry tries to fight off despair. “OH [EXPLETIVE] THIS!” he writes after struggling to reconcile readings from weather stations around the world. “It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I’m hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity. ...”
Can climate change science recover from the damage done by leaked emails?
Climategate. What a hot mess. Researchers at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University
of East Anglia and their colleagues around the globe may have fiddled with historical climate data and possibly the peer review process to
ensure that publicized temperature trends fit the narrative of man-made global warming—then they
emailed each other about it. Now those emails and other documents have been splashed all over the Web. Revelations contained
in the leaked emails are roiling the scientific community and the researchers may be in pretty serious trouble. But
the real tragedy of the Climategate scandal is that a lack of confidence in climate data will seriously impair mankind's
ability to assess and react properly to a potentially huge problem.
Phil Jones tried to hush my paper. SUNY Albany won't discuss the investigation my paper initiated. And QUB ignored my three FOI requests for their data.
What has become of science? We thought that science was about the pursuit of truth. Then we became
perplexed at how quickly scientists have prostituted themselves in the service of political agendas. We have seen the unedifying
spectacle of scientists refusing to share their data, fiddling their results, and resorting to ad hominem attacks
on those who have exposed their work to be fraudulent. We have seen the Royal Society becoming a shamelessly crude advocacy society.
We have seen President Obama choosing notorious climate alarmists and liars to be his personal advisors. We have seen
the peer review process and journal editors colluding to prevent publication of results that do not serve the politically-correct agenda,
and scientists refusing to consider results that demolish their pet theories. What is going on here?
Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have
stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents.
Today, the University of East Anglia revealed that the mountains of data used to back up their and the CRU’s
climate change predictions are indeed lost.
Third party requests to view the data had been repeatedly turned down, with the UEA giving various excuses for why it
could not make it publicly available. But today, they revealed that the excuses were a farce. The data isn’t there.
It hasn’t been there since the 1980’s.
It would appear that the Climategate scandal, the hacked emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the U.K. revealing that scientists distorted climate change data, is not going to cool off anytime soon.
Climate change skeptics are fired up about the "accidental" deletion of temperature data by head of the CRU Phil Jones and the bogus data aggregation procedure used by scientists that "renders the [temperature readings] totally meaningless," but what gets some people's goats the most is the fact that the University of East Anglia is still denying that there was any wrong doing.
Before the ClimateGate scandal, Wikipedia's article Censorship by Google had information about Google
censoring their autocomplete suggestion list:
Google also censors its search suggestions in the United States. "Dirty" search suggestions end
in an apostrophe, period, or hyphen. Suggestions containing the words "teen" or "teenager" are forbidden.
"Child abuse" is notoriously blocked as well, but not "abused children".
Then yesterday this information was expanded to include information about Google's censorship of the keyword "climategate":
Google also censors its search suggestions in the United States. "Dirty" search suggestions end in an apostrophe, period,
or hyphen. Suggestions containing the words "teen" or "teenager" are forbidden. "Child abuse" is notoriously blocked as well,
but not "abused children". Suggestions for "physical neglect" and "emotional neglect" are used as code
words for "physical abuse" and "emotional abuse". All queries containing "hate" are censored as well.
For example, instead of "Why did Hitler hate Jews?", a suggested query is "Why did Hitler hated Jews?".
More recently, Google has been censoring search suggestions skeptical of climate change,
i.e. "Climategate" is forbidden, but "climate change" is ok. Also both "climategate" and
"climate gate" search results went from over 12 million to around 6 million results for both. "climate gate"
should always yield more than "climategate" as teh Google search algorithm should
find all sites containing "climategate" and sites containing both "climate" and "gate", but
"climate gate" yields less results than "climategate". This is pointed to as undeniable evidence of tampering
since the results are violating the rules of their own search algorithm.
Today, that information has been removed. They removed ALL THE INFORMATION about Google's censorship of
keywords in its autocomplete suggestion list, not just the part about climategate.
This is, of course, no surprise at all. Al Gore is a Senior Advisor to Google, and Google is
in bed with Wikipedia, and all three are part of the global disinformation campaign pushing the lie of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
The search engine Google.com was blocking the word "climategate" from its autosuggestion routines, and appears to be still doing so.
Screenshots published by Ian Wishart of The Briefing Room, and Anthony Watts of WattsUpWithThat, show that when a user tries to spell out the word "climategate," even when he spells it out almost completely, the Google routine fails to suggest the word--unless that word is part of the user's prior search-engine history. Instead, the autosuggestion routine returns "Climate Guatemala" and "Climate Guatemala City."
Trials of a search on the word "climategate" on Microsoft's new Bing search engine produce no such problem.
Nothing about the revelations surprises me. I have maintained email correspondence with most of these scientists for many years, and
I know several personally. I long ago realized that they were faking the whole exercise.
The world cannot trust scientists who abuse their power.
For anyone who doubts the power of the Internet to shine light on darkness, the news of the month is how digital technology
helped uncover a secretive group of scientists who suppressed data, froze others out of the debate, and flouted
freedom-of-information laws. Their behavior was brought to light when more than 1,000 emails,and some 3,500 additional files
were published online, many of which boasted about how they suppressed hard questions about their data.
The emails, released by an apparent whistle-blower who used the name "FOI," were written by scientists at the
Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England. Its scientists are high-profile campaigners for the theory of global warming.
University of East Anglia Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit that fudged data in order
to con people into believing Global Warming, raked in £13.7 million ($22.6 million) in grants, Frank Beckmann of the Detroit News reported.
Beckmann wrote:
As Jones wrote to one-time United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author John Christy in one of his e-mails,
"I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t
being political, it is being selfish."
He had 22.6 million reasons to write that.
Jones, Gore and their ilk deserve to be discredited.
But they should join Americans and the world in celebrating the week that claims about manmade global warming — a kind of environmental Berlin Wall — came crashing down.
Beckman is not alone. One of the scientists connected with the IPCC — Eduardo Zorita of Germany’s Institute for Coastal Research — has dumped on Jones, Michael Mann of Penn State, and the other charlatans who deliberately misled the public with their scheme.
James Delingpole on Telegraph.co.uk writes:
What is going on at Google? I only ask because last night when I typed "Global Warming" into Google News
the top item was Christopher Booker’s superb analysis of the Climategate scandal.
It's still the most-read article of the Telegraph’s entire online operation – 430 comments and counting –
yet mysteriously when you try the same search now it doesn’t even feature. Instead, the top-featured item is a blogger pushing
Al Gore’s AGW agenda. Perhaps there’s nothing sinister in this. Perhaps some Google-savvy reader can enlighten me…..
I have been following the climategate scandal since it broke last week. I watched the exponention growth of results returned
by searching for "climategate" on Google. The first day was about 1000 hits. The next 2000, the third 10,000. Then the keyword "climategate" began appearing
in the autocomplete suggestion list. At the time of this writing, the keyword "climategate" returns over ten million pages, but the keyword itself
no longer appears in the suggestion list! GOOGLE IS CENSORING CLIMATEGATE! Little wonder, given that Al Gore is a Senior Advisor to Google! Here is his
official bio :
Former Vice President Al Gore is cofounder and Chairman of Generation Investment Management,
a firm that is focused on a new approach to Sustainable Investing.
Gore is also cofounder and Chairman of Current TV, an independently owned cable and satellite television network for young people based on
viewer-created content and citizen journalism. A member of the Board of Directors of Apple Computer, Inc.
and a Senior Advisor to Google, Inc. Gore is also Visiting Professor at Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro, Tennessee.
Mr. Gore is the author of An Inconvenient Truth, a best-selling book on the threat of and solutions to global warming, and the subject of the movie of the same title, which has already become one of the top documentary films in history. In 2007, An Inconvenient Truth was awarded two Academy Awards for Best Documentary Feature and Best Original Song.
Google is also censoring other search terms such as "climate emails" from their suggestion list. This is discussed on
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/012721.html .
UPDATE (11/29/09): The scandal of Google's censorship is now being reported all over the net (search: google climategate censorship).
It seems they are unsure how to respond to the revelation of their collusion in this scandal. They removed "climategate" from their
censor list for a while yesterday, then put it back on. Now they are allowing people to see it in the autocomplete suggestion list. The wiki page on
Censorship by Google has been updated to inform people about this issue:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google
Google also censors its search suggestions in the United States. "Dirty" search suggestions end in
an apostrophe, period, or hyphen. Suggestions containing the words "teen" or "teenager" are forbidden. "Child abuse" is notoriously blocked
as well, but not "abused children". Suggestions for "physical neglect" and "emotional neglect" are used as code words for
"physical abuse" and "emotional abuse". All queries containing "hate" are censored as well. For example,
instead of "Why did Hitler hate Jews?", a suggested query is "Why did Hitler hated Jews?".
More recently, Google has been censoring search suggestions skeptical of climate change,
i.e. "Climategate" is forbidden, but "climate change" is ok. Also both "climategate"
and "climate gate" search results went from over 12 million to around 6 million results for both.
"climate gate" should always yield more than "climategate" as teh Google search algorithm should find all
sites containing "climategate" and sites containing both "climate" and "gate", but
"climate gate" yields less results than "climategate". This is pointed to as undeniable evidence of
tampering since the results are violating the rules of their own search algorithm.
It will be interesting to see how long Wikipedia allows this information to remain on that page.
One of Europe's most ardent and best-known global warming alarmists, George Monbiot, is in anguish over the unfolding climategate e-mail
scandal and is calling on Phil Jones, one of the climate scientists at the heart of the fiasco, to resign.
"I have seldom felt so alone," wailed George Monbiot in his November 25 column in the Guardian, England's most prominent
left-wing daily. "Confronted with crisis, most of the environmentalists I know have gone into denial. The emails hacked from the Climatic Research
Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, they say, are a storm in a tea cup, no big deal, exaggerated out of all
recognition." Monbiot agrees with his green comrades that "climate change deniers have made wild claims which the [e-mail]
material can't possibly support." "But," he says, "it is also true that the emails are very damaging."
While this may sound like a conspiracy that might be found only on obscure websites, and midnight talk-radio,
the evidence is clear. The names, e-mail addresses, organizations, and government agencies that have been involved in this are
clearly put on display within the leaked documents and e-mails. The data-manipulation is made bare, and the methods
of how it has been presented to the public is clear, along with how they have squashed anyone who might
question their "science". The stakes are too high for them to be sidetracked by actual facts, or realistic solutions.
Climate-change researchers admit their data is 'garbage'
Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.
Those who question the consensus premise of the IPCC provide independent research on climate change and are skeptical of climate predictions based on computer models are tagged as "deniers" -- similar to the despicable folks who deny the Holocaust -- by the high priests of the environment movement and their legions of "green" enthusiasts.
Science without a healthy dose of skepticism and which isn't open to hard questioning becomes ideology.
An ideology is a closed system that distorts or excludes empirical data to serve its dogma.
As opposed to ideology or pseudoscience, science advances through critical thinking by subjecting theories to falsification tests and revisions.
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which
their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a
long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests
for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of
variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored
on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor
Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.
Leaked emails have revealed the unwillingness of climate change scientists to engage in a proper debate with the sceptics who doubt global warming
This is a highly detailed must read account of the evasions and tricks that CRU used to hide their data from any external review.
Mike Hulme says that the upcoming UN climate conference in Copenhagen "is about raw politics, not about the politics of science.
[...] It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails
display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we
find it at work inside science. It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the I.P.C.C. has run its course.
Yes, there will be an AR5 but for what purpose? The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to politicize climate
change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production – just at a time when
a globalizing and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive.
Dr. Judith Curry is the Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
Here is a snippet from her open letter:
An open letter to graduate students and young scientists in fields related to climate research
Based upon feedback that I’ve received from graduate students at Georgia Tech, I suspect that you are confused, troubled,
or worried by what you have been reading about ClimateGate and the contents of the hacked CRU emails. After spending considerable time
reading the hacked emails and other posts in the blogosphere, I wrote an essay that calls for greater transparency in
climate data and other methods used in climate research. The essay is posted over at climateaudit.org
(you can read it at http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/curry-on-the-credibility-of-climate-research/ ).
What has been noticeably absent so far in the ClimateGate discussion is a public reaffirmation by climate researchers of our basic
research values: the rigors of the scientific method (including reproducibility), research integrity and ethics, open minds,
and critical thinking. Under no circumstances should we ever sacrifice any of these values; the CRU emails, however, appear to violate them.
This is a statement by Eduardo Zorita who is a paleoclimatologist at the Institute for Coastal Research
at the GKSS Research Center in Geesthacht, Germany.
Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process
Short answer: because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.
A longer answer: My voice is not very important. I belong to the climate-research infantry, publishing a few papers per year,
reviewing a few manuscript per year and participating in a few research projects. I do not form part of important committees,
nor I pursue a public awareness of my activities. My very minor task in the public arena was to participate as a contributing author in the
Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.
By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication.
My area of research happens to be the climate of the past millennia, where I think I am appreciated by other climate-research 'soldiers'.
And it happens that some of my mail exchange with Keith Briffa and Timothy Osborn can be found in the CRU-files made public recently on
the internet.
Note the risk he is taking for merely speaking the truth as he sees it. Even after ClimateGate, he feels intimidated by the GroupThink of the
Global Warming Fanatics who have been running the accademic institutions. He is mentioned in 23 of the ClimateGate emails. He was critical of Mann's work, and
Phil Jones was asked for how to answer him in this email:
Dear professor Jones,
(We met ten days ago in Utrecht, when Albert Klein Tank got his PhD).
I am a science journalist of the Dutch daily newspaper NRC Handelsblad in Rotterdam
I try to write an article about climate (surface temperature) reconstruction as far back
as the year 1000 - the well know Mann, Bradley, Hughes (1998 and 1999) research.
The reason is, of course, the publication of the article of Von Storch, Zorita, c.s. in
Science-online (30 september). Von Storch claims that the statistical approach of Mann
c.s. produced a serious underestimation of the low frequency (long term) oscillations
in global temperature. The conclusion could be that the Medieval Warm Period was in fact
warmer than today. And the recent warming is - after all - not so special.
Can you in a few words - and for a general public - give a comment on the paper? Does it
make sense? It seems pretty convincing to me.
Can you help me?
Waiting for your reply,
sincerely yours,
Karel Knip
Their peer reviewed scientific paper contradicted the Mann hockey stick. It's no wonder Zorita had trouble gettting published.
| 
Bible Wheel Forum
Latest News