Climate Change proponents emails and files hacked

[Peter Lemkin]

Peter paints a desperate situation with all those hurricanes. Reminds me of the event that buried all those mammoths in Siberia 10,000 years ago or so, with undigested buttercups still in the stomachs of those not torn limb from limb.

This might be too fine a point for MSM to bother with, but Hadley CRU did not fudge the science, becaue they weren't doing science. They were running computer simulations.

From what I can tell, this is the best "science" IPCC can come up with, simulations and secret and/or lost datasets. This doesn't destroy the foundations of climatic science in any way, but it is very revealing on AGW. We already knew about this UN political body's false "scientific" consensus on AGW. Now we have access to a bunch of documents which seem to indicate plain fraud, an attempt to provide a scientific basis for what amounts to a cherished belief. With trillions of dollars expected to come of it among the powerbrokers.

The AGW theory has been disproved: carbon dioxide is still rising, but temperature isn't. The main hypothesis is untenable. CO2 as a trace gas in the atmosphere was never even a very good candidate for AGW. Water vapor and methane carry heat a lot better.

Luckily for the climatic terrorists, there is plenty of natural climate change afoot, as ever, and any number of disaster scenarios with which to titilate and scare funding out of the somnambulent public.

A point on the current leaked documents: a BBC meteorologist allegedly claimed they were genuine because he received the same set over a month ago. This cannot be true, because the batch I got has letters from around November 15, 2009. Either the BBC meteorologist is lying, or he never said any such thing. The claim seems designed to foster the idea they were leaked from inside rather than hacked, maybe to make them admissible in some court. I assume they're admissible anyway, they all seem to be emails and documents made during worktime at public expense.

I'm not sure why environmentalists engage in neo-Greek to rename the Earth, either. Maybe it sounds more scientific? I understand the "Gaia hypothesis" is nothing more than panspermia or animism, religion under guise of "hypothesis."

Gaea, Gaia or Ge
Greek myth. the goddess of the earth, who bore Uranus and by him Oceanus, Cronus and the Titans[from Greek gaia earth]

Environmentalists on the radical side of the field [myself included] use the term Gaia for two reasons: 1- to present a new name, not used in any language to awaken sleeping humanity to the need for a new paradigm [actually the oldest one we had before about 14,000 years ago - read the Chalice and the Blade by Eisler] and 2- Because of the brilliant work by James Lovelock in his paper, later a book called the Gaia Hypothesis, which posits [correctly] that the Planet Gaia is more than a lump of rock and water/atmosphere, BUT A SINGLE LIVING ORGANISM!!, and like all living organisms tries to maintain levels of equilibrium, tries to maintain life, fights when assaulted, etc. Just as we think [incorrectly] we are one being, when we are made-up of billions [yes billions] of beings - living in your gut, living in your blood, living in the mitochondria of every cell, etc., Gaia is a single organism made-up of the trillions of living things on it - only one [humans] are out of balance and threatening the others. We are also capable [in theory] of self-correction, if we had the moral will. I doubt it and religion [in the generic sense] and hubris, denial and deep over-involvement in self, and loss of contact with Natural Philosophy and Natural Values will cause us to not regain our standing as fellow living beings among those we exploit, kill, poison, seek to control, etc. Add to that the few in power in our species who have much to gain by this blindness and turning-away from Nature and voila - the end of Nature.....and the end of Humans too. Soon. In your grandchildren's lifetime. Sadly. Watch the brilliant movie http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...4678943881 and then we can discuss...I've seen it more than 20 times and cry every time. We've built a civilization based on false-values, non-Natural values, consumption and now over-consumption - blindly mowing life on Gaia down to nothing - leaving a desert - and a poisoned one, at that. The Native Americans and other indigenous peoples had it right. We have it wrong. We must change or we shall go the way of the buffalo and dodo. All very soon.

[Helen Reyes]

Thanks Peter. I guess I just tend to throw ideas of natural equilibria in with anthropomorphism, so it clusters with religion in the back of my mind. Anyway, I can respect your beliefs, and species extinction (due to habitat destruction by humans mainly) is atrocious and accelerating.

David: on where the data went (lost or deleted), there's an interesting blog at http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11630

Published by AJStrata at 5:53 pm under All General Discussions, CRU Climategate, Global Warming

One other aspect of the data I was analyzing in the long post below is the fact it uses a CRU generated comparison of a 2008 temp run (b) with a 2005 run – all captured in a pdf file made in July of this year. One has to wonder how CRU was able to do this data run when it supposedly lost the data many years ago? I guess Dr Jones can answer that for us all.

Updates below the fold


Final Update: (all following updates preceded this one) Good news from an interesting source. Charles Johnson notes the poor reporting misses a key statement from Jones

The research unit has deleted less than 5 percent of its original station data from its database because the stations had several discontinuities or were affected by urbanization trends, Jones said.

Johnson also confirms my speculation the data exists in the US;

Refuting CEI’s claims of data-destruction, Jones said, “We haven’t destroyed anything.The data is still there — you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center.”

As I suspected and showed below, the raw data could not have been deleted. So now we have something to look forward to now that CRU as agreed on full disclosure. Those challenging CRU need to keep their feet on the ground and their wild rhetoric in check. - end update

Update: The latest claim CRU “dumped” their data cannot be true unless Jones and Co. did so very recently (maybe to make good on their threat to avoid FOI responses):

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.

…

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.

…

Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue.

This is a complete crock. As I noted, there is a very important file call idl_cruts3_2005_vs_2008b.pdf in the data dump. The data graphed runs through 2008, while the file creation was in July 2009. ...

Also a correction: http://www.iceagenow.com doesn't link to the blogs on the code in the leak (at least not as far as I know), but here's a good example of what's going on:

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2...-code.html

[Magda Hassan]

What do the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have in common?

Echelon and cricket and war criminals as heads of state.
I find myself in the unusual position of supporting some of the Liberal and National Party pollies here in their rejection of an emissions trading scheme legislation but not for the same reasons they are rejecting it. With them it mostly seems to be because of their business interests (petro/coal industry or the compliance with be too much of a burden for business in general and business must be 'free' and unregulated) they are against it or because they do not 'believe' there is any such thing as global warming because some of them are not the brightest bunch. The leader of the Liberals is formerly a merchant banker and is supporting the emissions trading scheme as a banker and not an environmentalist. I agree that there is something called global warming and that humans have had a negative impact on the well being of the planet, including us, since major industrialisation. But even if it can be proven to me that there is no such thing as global warming I just can't see a down side in moving to a zero emission base. Air quality alone (good old fashioned air pollution which everyone agrees does exists) in the world's urban areas is poor and causes much illness with respiratory diseases. All that would be gone if industry was zero emission.

An emissions trading scheme on the other hand is just so much bull shit and the fact that it is being bundled into other legislation instead of separately causes me to wonder about the motives of the others who proposed it (the other business party currently in government) There are two separate issues and they are being conflated in people's minds. An ETS is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It will have no effect on reducing emissions just making money from shifting around responsibility for the cause of those emissions and seems to be supported by the corporate entities especially the big polluters (who can continue to evade their environmental responsibilities) and the finance sector which will do for the carbon trade market what they did for mortgages and wasn't that fun? In the mean time tribal people with almost zero footprint will be banished from their hunting grounds as the corporate interest buy up the carbon credits there so they can continue to pollute. Banking and finance types will make a fortune out of moving zeros and ones on their computers. The rich will get richer and the planet more polluted and the cause of pollution more entrenched.

So, I too reject the legislation because it is very flawed and does nothing to deal with the root causes of emissions and is an open cheque book for gross corporate abuse. I expect there are a couple of pollies rejecting it on this basis too but most of them are rejecting it for other more parochial and self interested reasons.

[Helen Reyes]

But zero emissions of what? CO2 is as harmless as steam, or less so, if you do believe human-generated greenhouse gasses are warming the planet. Water vapour and methane are the big greenhouse gasses, CO2 is a trace gas that is heavy and sinks away into the sea at the first opportunity, where it dissolves or is locked up in phytoplankton. Zero emissions of plutonium, great, let's make it happen. Sulphur can go too. Banning emissions of CO2 is really pointless, one volcano will release more in a single eruption than we can reduce in our emissions in 20 years. I totally agree there are plenty of poisons being released and that has to stop, but CO2 seems like a red herring. It's not a dangerous pollutant, it's not lead or plutonium or mercury which have no safe limits for human consumption, it's just a perfectly safe trace gas plants rely upon and which humans can breathe in very high concentrations with no ill effects. Aluminium oxide, which is apparently being sprayed in chemtrails on some pretext of fighting global warming, on the other hand, is poisonous to humans, animals and plants. Barium "salts" can't be any good for the crops either.

[David Guyatt]

Thanks for your post on the lost data Helen.

Everyone: I am a dummy when it comes to technical/scientific details so please treat me gently. It seems evident that global warming is happening over an extended period -- witness to this is that in the mid/late 1800's during winter times people use to light large bonfires on the iced-over Thames and huddle around them (no chance of that today -- too much effluence I guess).

So the question has to be, I suppose, is whether what we are witnessing is a natural warming cycle? After all, the UK used to have a tropical climate in the distant past, so it doesn't seem so odd it could revert to that again.

Children's stick-figure sketches in response very welcome. Anything more complicated gets lost in translation.

[Helen Reyes]

Everyone: I am a dummy when it comes to technical/scientific details so please treat me gently. It seems evident that global warming is happening over an extended period -- witness to this is that in the mid/late 1800's during winter times people use to light large bonfires on the iced-over Thames and huddle around them (no chance of that today -- too much effluence I guess).

So the question has to be, I suppose, is whether what we are witnessing is a natural warming cycle? After all, the UK used to have a tropical climate in the distant past, so it doesn't seem so odd it could revert to that again.

Children's stick-figure sketches in response very welcome. Anything more complicated gets lost in translation.

I'm no expert of course, but I think you've hit on the crux of the matter, David. It's about cycles. There is general warming because we are coming out of an ice age and are in an interglacial. On the more recent timescale, the Warming of ~AD 1000 gave way to the Little Ice Age when the Thames froze over and fur became a highly valued commodity across Europe. I have an audiobook of Bill Bryson's (probably butchered his surname, sorry) book "A Short History of Nearly Everything" which has a surprising amount of information on the history of geology as well as geological history. It makes plain how many of the divisions into geological ages, eons, epochs etc. were subject to much controversy at their birth, and are, essentially, arbitrary.

The earth has been much warmer before, and much colder. The rule seems to be that the climate is chaotic, and we for whatever reason inhabit the only known period of relatively stable climate changes. There are Great ice ages and Little ice ages, and there are points midway through interglacials when the climate turns cold. The periodicity seems to be 360,000 years and 60,000 years, and some smaller cycle, maybe of 6000-10,000 years, I'm not sure.

http://www.itsrainmakingtime.com/_recent...part1.html has an interview where various people talk about these and other cycles. Half of one equinoctal precession seems to be a key period in earth magnetism, according to one of the speakers.

[David Guyatt]

http://www.itsrainmakingtime.com/_recent...part1.html has an interview where various people talk about these and other cycles. Half of one equinoctal precession seems to be a key period in earth magnetism, according to one of the speakers.

Strikes me as probable - and we are furiously approaching the final tipping point (according to some but not to others) when a Platonic year expires with the arrival of the Age of Aquarius dawns. Circa 2012.

[Linda Minor]

I totally agree there are plenty of poisons being released and that has to stop, but CO2 seems like a red herring. It's not a dangerous pollutant, it's not lead or plutonium or mercury which have no safe limits for human consumption, it's just a perfectly safe trace gas plants rely upon and which humans can breathe in very high concentrations with no ill effects.

But carbon is pumped into the air by car exhaust burning fossil fuel. The financier class who is trying to set up the global warming infrastructure would like to take out the big oil companies and replace them with the "new energy," whatever that turns out to be.

I equate this to the way the Rockefellers took over the Morgan banking empire in the 30's when they and the Du Ponts bought GM ,and the car industry fueled on petroleum products replaced electric trams, causing the Insull empire to crash.

The electric utilities were part of the financial pump and dump scheme created by William C. Whitney to assist Democrat President Grover Cleveland and prevent the gold drain of the 1890's. It later helped fund the technology that led up to the atomic bomb prior to the Manhattan Project (See J. Conant's Tuxedo Park).

Bankers have a long memory. I think they have been planning this take over for quite awhile.

[Ed Jewett]

Children's stick-figure sketches in response very welcome. Anything more complicated gets lost in translation.

I'm with you, David.



When the experts with advanced degrees in the field can't agree and are riding into the battle within massed armies under differing fluttering war banners, I take a picnic lunch and sit up on the hill, much like the folks from Washington assembled for the first battle of Bull Run. The back and forth movement, the cannonade, the whiskered wizards ... it's all entertaining, and grim. There will be bodies on the field afterwards, and the war may drag on for a long time, and there will be history books one can read. It's amusing and entertaining and dreadfully important, so I can only wait at the telegraph station for dispatches from the other fronts.

[Peter Lemkin]

Sadly, the evidence is in - has long been in - the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is the main culprit in climate change and the difference is from the release of CO2 in burning of fossil fuels by humans. It is not a natural cycle of the Earth [Gaia] nor the sun - although they do have cycles, they are known and this is not them. Sorry. Even if there were no anthropogenically warming and climate change [there is!], humans are on a dead-ahead course to destruction and taking most life on the Planet with it. Yes, other gasses than CO2 also cause climate change and warming, but while CO2 causes the least per molecule, it has the greatest effect due to the large amounts. Oddly enough the increase in meat eating worldwide causes the second largest assault - due to the farting of cows and the methane produced. Volcanic activity averages the same all the time [averaged over a few years]; human use of fossil fuels doesn't. The icecaps and glaciers are melting and we are the cause. We are also poisoning the planet, changing the water availability, taking away habitat, and totally out of balance. If all those alive now [and the population will go from the current 7 billion to somewhere between 10 and 14 billion soon] were to live at the U.S. level of consumption and waste/poison/CO2/etc production, we would currently need 5-6 Planets [soon to be 10-12]. The sustainable number of humans at an advanced level on this Planet is about 1-2 billion*, given current technology - IF all were aware and environmentally conscious. We are not. Seeing global warming as another secret government conspiracy is the new cause celeb for some. I see it as I do Wallstreet et al. paying both the Dems and Repubs - so they always have control. Big business, while against curbs on fossil fuel use [CO2 emissions] plays both sides and is behind [can prove it!] the stories [just like they did with tobacco et al.] that there is still some doubt and debate. That debate is over in my field. Now is time for action! It may already be too late. Technology will NOT save us, only a total change in values - back to learning we don't own and control Gaia, but are just one of billions of organisms and if we kill them/disturb them - we kill ourselves. 200 species per day! The coral will be all dead in about ten years. Fish are down by 70% in some large areas of the oceans! Ocean levels rising and the pH of the oceans; climate is changing fast; dioxin [the most lethal chemical we have yet invented] production at insane levels; poisons in your food, air, water, homes, personal products, clothes, furniture, etc. We [humans] are to blame for all above - and more.

*No, don't have to kill anyone; prevent anyone who wants a child to have one - there are ways to reduce the population without coercion [still - soon, not!]. In fact in W. Europe most countries are now loosing population by choice in numbers and timing of children. Do some evil Secret Govt. types want to kill many, yes; but this is not the agenda of the Environmental Activists - don't confound the two - or you are buying the confusion and bait and switch tricks they always pull - as they do about Dallas, 911, you name it....