Skip to comments.Lord Moncktonís summary of Climategate and its issues
Posted on 12/02/2009 8:14:57 AM PST by dead
THE WHISTLE BLOWS FOR TRUTH
The whistleblower deep in the basement of one of the ugly, modern tower-blocks of the dismal, windswept University of East Anglia could scarcely have timed it better.
In less than three weeks, the worlds governing class its classe politique would meet in Copenhagen, Denmark, to discuss a treaty to inflict an unelected and tyrannical global government on us, with vast and unprecedented powers to control all once-free world markets and to tax and regulate the worlds wealthier nations for its own enrichment: in short, to bring freedom, democracy, and prosperity to an instant end worldwide, at the stroke of a pen, on the pretext of addressing what is now known to be the non-problem of manmade global warming.
The unnamed hero of Climategate, after months of work gathering emails, computer code, and data, quietly sent a 61-megabyte compressed file from one of the universitys servers to an obscure public message-board on the internet, with a short covering note to the effect that the climate was too important to keep the material secret, and that the data from the University would be available for a short time only. He had caught the worlds politico-scientific establishment green-handed. Yet his first attempts to reveal the highly-profitable fraud and systematic corruption at the very heart of the UNs climate panel and among the scientists most prominent in influencing its prejudiced and absurdly doom-laden reports had failed. He had made the mistake of sending the data-file to the mainstream news media, which had also profited for decades by fostering the global warming scare, and by generally denying anyone who disagreed with the official viewpoint any platform.
The whistleblowers data file revealed, for the first time, the innermost workings of the tiny international clique of climate scientists, centered on the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia, that has been the prime mover in telling the world that it is warming at an unprecedented rate, and that humankind is responsible.
REVEALED: THE ABJECT CORRUPTION OF CLIMATE SCIENCE
The gallant whistleblower now faces a police investigation at the instigation of the University authorities desperate to look after their own and to divert allegations of criminality elsewhere. His crime? He had revealed what many had long suspected:
A tiny clique of politicized scientists, paid by unscientific politicians with whom they were financially and politically linked, were responsible for gathering and reporting data on temperatures from the palaeoclimate to todays climate. The Team, as they called themselves, were bending and distorting scientific data to fit a nakedly political story-line profitable to themselves and congenial to the governments that, these days, pay the bills for 99% of all scientific research.
They had campaigned for the removal of a learned journals editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase and corrupt science for political purposes.
THE NATURE TRICK TO HIDE THE DECLINE IN TEMPERATURES
Among the most revealing of the emails released to the world by the whistleblower was one dated November 1999. In that email, Professor Phil Jones of the CRU wrote to Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes, the authors of the infamous hockey stick graph that falsely abolished the medieval warm period: Almost immediately after the news of Climategate broke, Professor Jones told Investigative Magazines TGIF Edition that he had no idea what he might have meant by the words hide the decline. He said:
Theyre talking about the instrumental data which is unaltered but theyre talking about proxy data going further back in time, a thousand years, and its just about how you add on the last few years, because when you get proxy data you sample things like tree rings and ice cores, and they dont always have the last few years. So one way is to add on the instrumental data for the last few years.
A few hours later, the science hate-crime website created by the Team cobbled together a jumbled, snivelingly self-serving, and entirely different pretext: The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction [the hockey-stick graph of pre-instrumental temperatures over the past 1000 years in the Northern Hemisphere], and the trick is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term trick to refer to a good way to deal with a problem, rather than something that is secret, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the decline, it is well known that Keith Briffas [another prominent member of the Team] maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the divergence problem and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al. in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post-1960 part of their reconstruction, and so, while hiding is probably a poor choice of words (since it is hidden in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
Enter Steve McIntyre, the one who had first realized that the UNs climate panel in 2001 had used a corrupt graph that had falsely abolished the medieval warm period with the aim of pretending that todays global temperatures are unprecedented in at least 1000 years. Later that day his website, www.climateaudit.org, revealed the truth about the conspirators trick. In order to smooth a data series over a given time period, one must pad it with artificial data beyond the endpoint of the real series. However, when Mann, Bradley, and Hughes plotted instrumental data against their reconstructions based on the varying widths of tree-rings from ancient trees, their favourite form of proxy or pre-instrumental reconstructed temperature, no smoothing method could conceal the fact that after 1960 the tree-ring data series trended downward, while the instrumental series trended upward. This was the Teams divergence:
So Manns solution [Mikes Nature trick] was to use the instrumental record for padding [both the proxy and the instrumental data series], which changes the smoothed series to point upwards.
Accordingly, though the author of the original email had said that the trick was to add instrumental measurements for years beyond available proxy data, his conspirators at the science-hate website admitted it was actually a replacement of proxy data owing to a known but unexplained post-1960 divergence between the proxy data and the instrumental data. In fact, it was a fabrication.
The next day, in a statement issued by the University of East Anglias press office, Professor Jones fumblingly tried to recover the position:
The word trick was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward.
As we shall see, Professor Jones was not telling the truth.
BREAKING THE BROKEN CODE: DISSECTING THE DODGY DATA
The Documents folder in the enormous data-file released by the whistleblower contains many segments of computer program code used by Jones and the Team in contriving the Climate Research Units global temperature series. The data-file also contained a 15,000-line commentary by programmers concerned that the code and the data used by the Team were suspect, were fabricated, and were not fit for their purpose. Looking at the seldom-tidy code, the sheer number of programs which subject the raw data to various degrees of filtering, processing, and tampering is disconcerting. Some of these alterations were blatant and unacceptable, notably those which removed proxy data that correlate poorly with measured regional temperature, or even replaced proxy data altogether with measured data to conceal a discrepancy between what the proxy data actually showed and what the Team wanted it to show.
The Teams programmers even admitted, in comments within the code, that they were artificially adjusting or correcting the proxy data from tree-rings. In Fortran, the high-level computer language long in use at universities for programming, a programmers comment is usually preceded by the statement REM for remark, indicating that the text on the line following the word REM should be ignored by the compiler program that translates the Fortran code that humans can understand into executable machine language that the computer can understand.
One of the commonest remarks included in the program fragments disclosed by the whistleblower is as follows:
These will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures.
There could scarcely be a plainer admission that the data are being regularly, routinely, materially tampered with, for the sake of making it appear that the proxy data are sufficiently reliable to appear close to the instrumental temperatures.
This is no mere debating point. The UNs climate panel had issued specific warnings against using proxy data (MXD) from tree-rings, because warmer weather is not the only reason why tree-rings become wider in some years than in others. There are at least two other prominent reasons, both of which can and do distort the tree-ring data beyond the point where they are useful as indicators of (or proxies for) pre-instrumental temperatures. First, the tree-rings become wider whenever the weather becomes wetter. Secondly, and of still greater concern, the tree-rings widen when there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And there is 40% more CO2 in the atmosphere today than there was in 1750.
Yet, as McIntyre and McKitrick had established originally in 2003, and had published in a leading journal in 2005, the majority of the data on the basis of which Mann, Bradley and Hughes, and later other members of the Team, had attempted to pretend that there had been no medieval warm period were tree-ring series. Take out the suspect tree-ring series, together with just one other rogue series, and all the remaining data series establish beyond reasonable doubt that the Middle Ages were truly, materially, and globally warmer than the present.
Scientists with programming knowledge have already begun to examine the computer code that Professor Jones and his colleagues had attempted to hide for so long. Here is Marc Sheppards selection of three examples of the tortuous sequences of deliberate data tampering that are evident within the program code.
Read the complete report from SPPI here:
One could get more accurate weather predictions from another 'Phil' from Puxatawny.
Ocean Acidification is another eco-crisis manufactured by left-wing control freaks.
The very term is misleading. The ocean is not acidic, it is basic. Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104 (Source: Wikipedia). So it is not acidic, it is simply becoming less basic. The percent change is -0.91% not 30%. (Your bimbo at the hearings was lying - big surprise)
The threat, they say, is that organisms that secrete carbonate shells will dissolve and die off. Save the corals!
However, recent studies have shown that as pH rises, calcifying organisms simply increase their rate of calcification to compensate. So, nature adapts as it always has.
Re: Smiling Al photo ...
Oh my God he has no chin!!!!!!!
Must be that damn Global Warming ...
I just read something about that in the last couple of days, but couldn't find the link so I left it out of my posts.
bookmark for later read
Lord Monckton (who was scientific adviser to PM Margaret Thatcher - herself a scientist) is trying so hard to get the world's attention to this global warming hoax. He has repeatedly tried to engage Al Gore in a debate - the latter has declined.
Saw him on Glenn Beck's show, where he warned about the consequences of this Treaty of Copenhagen, due to be enacted in five days time.
Sure wish Rush and Hannity would interview him.
I should have said “...as pH decreases...”