How to get the damaging leaked University of East Anglia CRU files about AGW

..

ic

Little risk of AlGore doing that:

My favorite comments-

"So, it would appear that the best approach to counter Gore's claims is to let the man speak"

"For the last time. Al Gore is an environmental activist, not a climatologist."

Mark L. Fergerson

WOW ! This is really going to put the cat amongst the pigeons.

Thanks for the link, Graham

I like Monckton for his simple directness in his analysis. The warmingists claim that as a non-scientist he shouldn't be taken seriously but the same can be said of Al Bore.

There's some good Monckton vids on YouTube.

Well I'm in the UK and our 'Number 10' has an internet petitions site.

I suggest all UK residents at home and abroad take a look at the following online petitions and ideally sign up to them.

Graham

No they WERE NOT. They were an attempt to stop ANYONE seeing the horrible truth. But it's out now. Probably the end of AGW.

It's ILLEGAL !

except

OH DEAR, classic mud-slinging from a warmingist. They have only The Emperor's New Clothes to rely on, so as usual reply with hostile personal attacks. Where's your SCIENCE ? Answer: HIDDEN behind locked doors and servers. Why does it NEED to be hidden ? Obviously they have something they feel they need to hide.

Anyone who's seen Monckton can see he's highly intelligent and well informed.

Graham

But not the Ice Caps which is what counts. Ice shelves have always come and gone. In fact the central caps on both Greenland and the Antarctic are GROWING ( satellite data for Greenland certainly ). A simple example of climate feedback. More moisture laden air leads to more snow precipitated on the Ice Caps and they grow. Hence sea level has dropped

Polar bears are thriving.

What's the relevance of that. Water holes are not constant things and never have been.

So what ? Sea ice melting doesn't change sea level ( except very minutely due to salt content ) or don't you know basic physics ? The effect on albedo at that latitude will be minute. Obviously you also didn't see a recent Top Gear programme where they drove a 4WD / SUV to the North Pole. I suppose they were driving on water were they ?

And what caused the cooling of the Little Ice Age from which we are simply recovering ? Who knows ?

You have NO valid data. And snipping groups belittles you.

Graham

Doubtful. But why let facts bother a warmingist ?

Graham

Denier ? Typical childish AGW reaction. You resort to name-calling because you have nothing else. Why not say "nerr nerr nerr" or "neener neener neener" as I believe it is in the USA.

Uh ? It's the warmingists that posture.

A factual statement. The files ARE damaging and they WERE leaked. Do you have problems with understanding the truth ?

Graham

See, all you can offer are insults in response to scientific FACTS.

He sounds pretty rational and present a very well considered case here.

Plenty more Monckton there too.

Graham

'Climategate' is a BRITISH issue. Someone finally blew the whistle. What's the GOP got to do with it?

Graham

Absolutely so. But then Bret is well-known as a simple minded and gullible fool. I think he believed in the water fuelled engine too.

Graham

That's a step up from what he was until recently, a sanctimonious misanthrope more interested in preaching to humans than saving polar bears.

Gore always undermines anything his is associated with.

The temperature in your body is always changing.

That doesn't mean you want it to go to 105 degrees.

There is _some_ disagreement to the extent but all the scientists agree:

It is proven and it represents a threat down the road.

ange,

True.

We really need a battery. Solar thermal pays for itself in 10 - 20 years.

S,

China is developing sustainable power.

I'll be happy to survive $10/gallon fuel.

Bret Cahill

Al Gore is nothing but a fat stupid senator's son who has never done a day's work in his entire life. He just wants an excuse to priss around.

There are parasites in all fields.

Bret Cahill

He is very good at spinning a deceitful web of half truths and well calculated lies intended to appeal to other righttards and sucker in the general public. No surprise then that you are a great fan of his.

You are wrong. Even delusional right wing nutters occasionally make correct statements. A statement of fact can either be verified or it cannot. Fallacious reasoning requires a bit more effort to unpick.

My point here was that his paranoid arguments about AGW science are deliberately misleading and have been constructed to appeal to the baser instincts of other righttards. He is on the far edge of lunatic fringe.

Very good at what he does as a denier for hire though.

Regards, Martin Brown

AGW is still real enough. Much as you may wish it wasn't. I doubt that anything useful will come out of Copenhagen so we will get to see how bad things can get under the business as usual scenario. The evidence so far is that the IPCC's estimates may be on the low side.

They are innocent until proven guilty at least in the UK.

In as much as a barking mad righttard can ever be. Odd that a champagne socialist should find common cause with a bunch of neofascists.

The science is clear enough. "Climategate" just shows a few people being rather silly in private emails. It doesn't affect the validity of any of the other global temperature datasets. The SCIENCE is mostly published in peer review journals rather than on denialist websites.

Compared to the fighting between supporters of Newton and Liebnitz over the invention of calculus the stuff in the CRU releases is actually very tame. We still use calculus and with Liebnitz notation even in the UK.

Regards, Martin Brown

...

fic

nd

But the validity of other global temperature datasets IS now very MUCH in doubt!

According to the article at

---------- and I quote,

"There are only four such datasets: two from the Earth=92s surface and two from satellites. The two terrestrial datasets are Professor Jones=92 dataset from the Climate Research Unit, in collaboration with the Hadley Center for Forecasting at the UK Meteorological Office; and Professor James Hansen=92s dataset at NASA=92s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in collaboration with NOAA=92s National Climatic Data Center, which produces its own dataset that is, however, functionally near- identical with that of NASA. The two satellite datasets are those of Remote Sensing Systems, Inc., and of the University of Alabama at Huntsville."

and

"However, the whistleblower=92s data file reveals that there is very close collusion indeed between key figures in the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and in both NASA=92s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and NOAA=92s National Climatic Data Center. Members of all of these entities in the scientific establishment are also members of the Team. They co-ordinate their results, and they co- ordinate how they present their results, and they co-ordinate how, between them, they control or seek to control =96 to a remarkable extent =96 the entire process of the UN=92s climate panel, as well as the process of publication of learned papers in scientific journals, and even the appointment of reviewers and editors."

"Professor Jones at the Climate Research Unit in the UK, Gavin Schmidt at NASA, and Tom Karl at NOAA are now known via their email correspondence to be closely and poisonously in league with one another, and with the paleoclimate community, such as Mann, Bradley, and Hughes, the three authors of the paper seized upon by the UN for its 2001 report claiming =96 contrary to the overwhelming evidence in the peer-reviewed literature, and in history, and in archaeology =96 that there was no medieval warm period and that, accordingly, the 20th century was the warmest in at least the past ten centuries. There is no link between those who produce the two satellite-based datasets and those who produce the surface datasets. Indeed, John Christy and Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, who run one of the two satellite datasets, are among the most vocal dissenters from what we are told is the scientific =93consensus=94 attributing most of the =93global warming=94 of the past half-century to humankind."

and

"The Science and Public Policy Institute, in compiling its global- temperature graphs for the authoritative Monthly CO2 Reports, had originally relied upon all four of the major datasets. We were compelled to drop the NASA GISS/NOAA NCDC dataset when it became apparent that the data from more than half a century ago were being deliberately manipulated in an improper manner with the manifest intention of artificially inflating the true rate of observed warming in the 20th century."

"We must now also cease to use the Hadley/CRU dataset, which =96 on the evidence made public by the courageous whistleblower at the University of East Anglia =96 is little better than science fiction. In future, therefore, the SPPI monthly surface-temperature graphs will exclude the two terrestrial-temperature datasets altogether and will rely solely upon the RSS and UAH satellite datasets."

----------

It sounds fairly damning, to me. But I urge you and everyone to actually read the entire PDF article at the link I gave above, and "say (why) it ain't so".

Given the apparent connections and collusions between the people who have apparently been fraudulently manipulating the CRU dataset and the people who have apparently been doing the same types of things with the NASA/NOAA datasets, there is now much doubt, indeed!

Cheers,

Tom

Paranoid ? He seems VERY well informed to me. Ever seen one of his vids on youtube or are you just parroting the AGW agenda ? Funny, your 'dittohead' comment seems to sum up the warmingists.

FACTUAL actually.

More insults. I'm not on the right btw.

He isn't but it's increasingly obvious that you are. Are you going to start howling at the moon to prove AGW next ? Why is sea level going down, or don't you want to open your eyes to REAL data ?

As usual, all you can offer are insults. Warmingists are the 'playground bullies' of the climate change agenda.

Will you EVER offer some science or data ?

Graham

SPPI and Monckton are well know denialist bedfellows. His presentation in March to the House Senate committee was funny for all the wrong reasons. eg.

He is a great showman. Though his command of the facts is somewhat lacking - either that or he has absolutely no personal integrity. A fair proportion of what he says is easily proved wrong by fact checking.

It is odd that the US senators cannot distinguish fact from fiction. The UK Science & Technology Select Committee are much more on the ball and considerably less partisan in their approach. They also talk to real experts rather than pretend ones from ultraright wing think tanks.

Regards, Martin Brown

Who ?

Have you EVER actually spent time reading or viewing him ? I'll bet you haven't. And CUT THE INSULTS if that's all you have. In fact removing yourself from this thread would be a relief. The bile you spew is vile.

Graham

p.s. bought 3 'denialist' books for Christmas. I was spoilt for choice. Amazon has about a dozen or more.

On a sunny day (Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:32:19 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bret Cahill wrote in :

You will *not* be able to prevent the next ice agae, even if there were no humans, it would come. and it would go again:

Again: ice ages will come, and ice ages will go. So, *given* that, we need energy to cope with it.

Turning your heater lower and smashing all filament type lightbulbs will not change current and future temperature on earth at all. Windmills and solar cannot provide enough power. We need nuclear, work on fusion, and keep pumping oil in the mean time.