Posts Tagged ‘Climategate’

Climategate Russia

December 21, 09

First was Climategate.

Next came Climategate NZ.

Then came Climategate Darwin.

And now, here’s their Russian sister via Moonbattery and Gateway Pundit:

On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

[…]The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

I predict that the revelation of outright fabrication of ‘evidence of global warming’ will travel all the way through the chain until the IPCC reports themselves are discredited at long last.

Malaysiakini Letters – Climate Change Mitigation = Insanity

December 14, 09

From Malaysiakini letters.

Be sure to check out the comments by Mr M who accuses me of living in a dream world where I can’t see the effects of a warming world, yet obviously did not even bother clicking on the single link to see the citations and evidence (including photos) I collected.

Standard troll who barely skims through a post he disagrees before attacking a straw man fantasy.


Climate change: do we really want to join this insanity?
Scott Thong Yu Yuen
Dec 11, 09

I refer to the letter Climate changes but no changes in M’sian strategy. Let me say that I agree totally with any efforts to adapt to climate change.

Since the beginning of our planet’s history, climate has been changing – from the ice ages to the Medieval Warm Period to our present time. It is only sensible for us to keep adapting to the constant change that the planet has wrought since long before we lit the first cooking fire.

However, the writer seems to focus only on strategies to mitigate climate change – carbon neutrality, renewable energy, environmentally-friendly products, Copenhagen COP 15. All of these measures are based on the theory that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will drastically change the climate through the phenomenon known as global warming.

Quite frankly, the theory that carbon dioxide is the main driver of global temperature has been battered left, right and centre by recent events.

First, the actual data shows that for throughout the known temperature record stretching back tens of thousands of years, temperature rises first – followed 800 years later by carbon dioxide. Got that? Temperature rise causes carbon dioxide increase. In essence, this is the reverse of what the global warming theory says, unless the modern world somehow follows totally different laws of physics from the past.

Second, even as carbon dioxide levels have been steadily rising with every passing year, there has been no increase in recent temperatures. The BBC reports, ‘For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures…even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise’.

Even global warming researchers concur on this point, with the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU) researchers admitting in the Climategate files: ‘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) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

Another email says, ‘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’.

Climategate has rocked the world of science with its admissions of no recent warming, coupled with a conspiracy to tamper with the data so that the end result would fool the public and policymakers into seeing warming. I suggest that the reader do an Internet search for the term.

Third, the real world itself testifies against global warming. Arctic ice levels are the same today as in 1979, with sea ice increasing at record rates. Antarctic ice levels are today at the highest levels ever measured, with continental ice increasing at record rates.

In 2008, China had its coldest temperatures in 100 years, Pakistan in 70 years, Sydney in 50 years, Mumbai in 40 years, and Takijistan in 25 years. Snow fell in the deserts of Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the United Arab Emirates for the first times in known history. More evidence here.

Fourth, the Copenhagen Treaty and its predecessor the Kyoto Protocol are a waste of time, resources and public attention. If carbon dioxide doesn’t actually cause global warming, then what is the whole point of restrictions on carbon emissions?

If Kyoto and Copenhagen were cost and drawback free, then there would be no problems with implementing the recommendations – just for fun!

However, the facts belie that fantasy. For Germany alone, in 2005 alone, adherence to the Kyoto Protocol cost 6.2 billion Euros in increased energy costs. Continued adherence is estimated to result in a loss of 18.5 billion Euros by 2010 – and that’s without applying the stricter parameters negotiated at Copenhagen.

How about more recent results? Australia’s Kyoto-styled Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is due for 2010. Starting steps towards it have already caused electricity prices to shoot up 22%, with a predicted doubling of energy costs by 2015.

And what has all this massive spending actually accomplished? Unfortunately, nothing – since the Kyoto Protocol was enacted, the European Union only had a 1.5% decrease in carbon emissions, instead of the Kyoto Protocol target of 8% decrease. Signatory Japan even had an 8% increase, and Canada a 22% increase.

So even if carbon dioxide does cause global warming which leads to catastrophic climate change (and it doesn’t), restrictions on carbon emissions simply do not achieve their stated goal – while tossing literally billions into the furnace, during a global recession no less!

Do we really want Malaysia to join in this insanity? For I recall that Einstein had another, more well-known adage: ‘Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results’.

Copenhagen is just a repeat of the failed policies of Kyoto, in fact, done more extremely. To expect it to achieve anything but waste even more billions is insane. Malaysia should have no part in this madness.

And yes, Einstein may have been right when he said, ‘We can’t solve the problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them’.

But I’ll counter with two other adages: ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ and ‘Don’t use a hammer to swat a fly’. That is, if human activity is not really causing catastrophic climate change, then don’t implement measures that cripple our economic capabilities while achieving absolutely nothing. Instead, spend some of those wasted billions on adapting to the climate change that we cannot control.

Don’t get me wrong – I am strongly supportive of real environmental measures such as rainforest conservation and bio-diversity preservation. I am even in favour of weaning off fossil fuels – gradually and guided by market forces, not prematurely and forced along by draconian laws.

But please – let’s not waste any more time, money and public attention of global warming. We could better spend those billions lost through adherence to carbon limits on providing clean water to Third World countries, cleaning up Beijing’s choking smog and fixing our injured economies.


Read up more at:

Climategate Darwin

December 11, 09

Hot on the heels of the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit’s Climategate, here is yet more global warming dishonesty exposed.


Excerpted from Watts Up With That:

Then I went to look at what happens when the GHCN removes the “in-homogeneities” to “adjust” the data. Of the five raw datasets, the GHCN discards two, likely because they are short and duplicate existing longer records. The three remaining records are first “homogenized” and then averaged to give the “GHCN Adjusted” temperature record for Darwin.

To my great surprise, here’s what I found. To explain the full effect, I am showing this with both datasets starting at the same point (rather than ending at the same point as they are often shown).

Figure 7. GHCN homogeneity adjustments to Darwin Airport combined record

YIKES! Before getting homogenized, temperatures in Darwin were falling at 0.7 Celcius per century … but after the homogenization, they were warming at 1.2 Celcius per century. And the adjustment that they made was over two degrees per century … when those guys “adjust”, they don’t mess around. And the adjustment is an odd shape, with the adjustment first going stepwise, then climbing roughly to stop at 2.4C.


NST Letters: Enough of That Distraction (i.e. Global Warming & Copenhagen Treaty)

December 10, 09

Finally found a printed copy, as it didn’t appear in the online version. Many thanks to Sue Lynn for spotting it and noting it to me!

From NST Letters 4 Dec 2009:


Climategate NZ

December 1, 09

With Cilmategate still fresh off the presses (if the lie-beral media would practise some accountability and actually cover it), here comes Climategate New Zealand.

From the actual data which would result in this graph showing modern temperatures to be about on-par with the rest of history:

Straight away you can see there’s no slope—either up or down. The temperatures are remarkably constant way back to the 1850s. Of course, the temperature still varies from year to year, but the trend stays level—statistically insignificant at 0.06°C per century since 1850.

To this heavily doctored fakery meant to shock and alarm an unknowing public about the dire rise in temperature of our times:

Putting these two graphs side by side, you can see huge differences. What is going on?

Why does NIWA’s graph show strong warming, but graphing their own raw data looks completely different? Their graph shows warming, but the actual temperature readings show none whatsoever!

Have the readings in the official NIWA graph been adjusted?

It is relatively easy to find out. We compared raw data for each station (from NIWA’s web site) with the adjusted official data, which we obtained from one of Dr Salinger’s colleagues.

Requests for this information from Dr Salinger himself over the years, by different scientists, have long gone unanswered, but now we might discover the truth.

What did we find? First, the station histories are unremarkable. There are no reasons for any large corrections. But we were astonished to find that strong adjustments have indeed been made.

About half the adjustments actually created a warming trend where none existed; the other half greatly exaggerated existing warming. All the adjustments increased or even created a warming trend, with only one (Dunedin) going the other way and slightly reducing the original trend.

The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as documented below. There is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments and to date Dr Salinger and NIWA have not revealed why they did this.

One station, Hokitika, had its early temperatures reduced by a huge 1.3°C, creating strong warming from a mild cooling, yet there’s no apparent reason for it.

We have discovered that the warming in New Zealand over the past 156 years was indeed man-made, but it had nothing to do with emissions of CO2—it was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature. It’s a disgrace.

NIWA claim their official graph reveals a rising trend of 0.92ºC per century, which means (they claim) we warmed more than the rest of the globe, for according to the IPCC, global warming over the 20th century was only about 0.6°C.

Via Moonbattery

Global Warming Liars of Climatic Research Unit Exposed Doctoring Data

November 21, 09

UPDATE: Phil Jones finally admits it – no warming in the past 15 years!

Excellent summary of who is who involved in Climategate via Moonbattery:

UPDATE: Phil Jones temporarily steps down as head of CRU.

UPDATE: They knew about problems with the data but sat on it for three years!

Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin syndicated columns here.


From Moonbattery via Watts Up With That, more evidence that global warming hoaxters are intentionally trying to deceive the public.

Above from Daily Mail UK.

From emails hacked out of the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia:

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. 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.

Phil Jones is none other than the director of the CRU. Mike’s Nature trick is explained here.

Above from Watts Up With That

To which is replied to by one guilty (or self-protecting and nervous) soul:

I’m not too comfortable with this, and would rather not sign — at least not without some real time to think it through and debate the issue. It is unprecedented and political, and that worries me.


The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!
Cheers Phil

And it seems that all claims that it was all semantics aside, a file of code also in the collection of emails and documents from CRU is even more telling:

Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

And they also discuss how to discredit research that shows how solar activity is the main factor that affects climate, not CO2.

There are now calls for a serious investigation coming from both believers and skeptics.

Michael Mann, who is ‘Mike’ cited in the email, gives his defense of Phil Jones – basically spinning that they didn’t try to mislead, merely throw out the data that didn’t help their theory!

Of course they need to hide the reality – even the BBC admits that there has been no warming in 11 years.

In fact, the researchers themselves admit as much privately:

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.

And listen to this poor programmer trying to recreate the results using the same data:

I am seriously close to giving up, again. The history of this is so complex that I can’t get far enough into it before by head hurts and I have to stop. Each parameter has a tortuous history of manual and semi-automated interventions that I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the update prog. I could be throwing away all kinds of corrections – to lat/lons, to WMOs (yes!), and more.

Even the leftwing Guardian UK newspaper investigates the files to find deeply flawed Chinese weather stations data.

You can see the rest of the evidence against global warming I have collected at the handy Global Warming is Unfactual site.

All the emails, searchable, through this link.

But we global warming skeptics have already come to expect such dishonesty from the likes of global warming fearmongerers like NZ scientists faking a cooler past; NASA similarly withholding data; cherry-picking data to create the infamous and disproven hockey stick; putting temperature sensors next to BBQ pits; data manipulation by none other than NASA head James Hansen; and basically everything from Al Gore.

Meanwhile, of course, the Lie-beral media refuses to inform the public of this major story, even as hardcore warmists admit its importance and a major conflict is brewing in the IPCC.

Instead, they keep churning out global warming stories… While the commentors keep bringing up Climategate.

Meanwhile, in contrast to other search engines, Google does not auto-suggest Climategate even when users type in most of the phrase – even though ‘Climategate’ has surpassed ‘global warming’ as a common search term.

The NYT and BBC even refused to run the story despite receiving the files over a month ago.

Thrree of the major US networks have not mentioned anything about Climategate even once by 12 days after the scandal, despite Phil Jones’ stepping down and Congressional calls for investigation.

Yet 59% of Americans believe that some scientists could have falsified data to push their agenda.

Above via Moonbattery.

Via Moonbattery, an amusing video illustrating many of the dishonesties surrounding Climategate:

%d bloggers like this: