Finally someone has blown the whistle on the hokum science, the lies, the bullying and in fact the whole shebang of the whole crooked smelly bag of shit that Global Warming/Climate Change is by releasing 1000′s of emails between Warmist scientists.
Peer Reviewed scientists should be more like smear reviewed. The liars are caught.
This is the end of Global Warming lie, mark my words, the media is now picking up what the blogs have been running for days, and the emails are being propagated everywhere. Copenhagen is now dead in the water and so should our ETS based on the evidence of these emails.
As Andrew Bolt says;
Weâ€™re all struggling. What do we call this scandal?
Itâ€™s in fact a conspiracy of many of the worldâ€™s leading global warming scientists that involves massaging data, dodging scrutiny, hounding out sceptical editors, fudging figures, the possibly criminal destruction of data under FOI request, tax avoidance, gloating over a scepticâ€™s death, character assassination of sceptics. admissions of using â€śtricksâ€ť to â€śhideâ€ť inconvenient trends, farming grants, private admissions of grave doubts in their own public warming warnings, close collusion with green groups, the joint concocting of the most alarmist announcements and much more.
The lies have finally been outed. From Wattsupwiththat;
The Internet is an amazing place. Now thereâ€™s a website that has put all of the emails into a searchable database with a web engine interface.
The screencap below shows the engine at http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/
I have no idea who put this together, but it does seem to work quite well. For example, typing in theÂ keyword â€śmoronâ€ť yields an interesting email.Â So does typing in the name of a prominent climate â€śbulldogâ€ť.
Do a search for “salinger” and you get 29 results proving that Jim Salinger is a member of the conspiracy.
Here is just one excerpt of how involved Jim Salinger was, corresponding with Michael Mann over a beating up of a contrarian view. If this series of emails shows anything it shows that the phrase “peer-reviewed” will now be held in complete contempt.
On Jul 28, 2009, at 5:15 AM, Phil Jones wrote:
Jim et al,
Having now read the paper in a moment of peace and quiet, there are a few things to bear in mind. The authors of the original will have a right of reply, so need to ensure that they don’t have anything to come back on. From doing the attached a year or so ago, there is a word limit and also it is important to concentrate only on a few key points. As we all know there is so much wrong with the paper, it won’t be difficult to come up with a few, but it does need to be
just two or three.
The three aspects I would emphasize are
1. The first difference type filtering. Para 14 implies that they smooth the series with a 12 month running mean, then subtract the value in Jan 1980 from that in Jan 1979, then Feb 1980 from Feb 1979 and so on. As we know this removes any long-term trend. The running mean also probably distorts the phase, so this is possibly why they get different lags from others. Using running means also enhances the explained variance. Perhaps we should repeat the exercise without the smoothing.
2. Figure 4 and Figure 1 show the unsmoothed GTTA series. These clearly have a trend. Perhaps show the residual after extracting the ENSO part.
3. They do the same first difference on the smoothed SOI. The SOI doesn’t explain
the climate jump in the 1976/77 period. Their arguments in para 30 are all wrong.
A few minor points
- there are some negative R*R values just after equation 3.
- I’m sure Tom Wigley wouldn’t have proposed El Nino events occurring after volcanoes!
Attached this paper as well. From a quick read it doesn’t say what is purported – in fact it seems to show clearly how the analysis should have been done.
- there is a paper by Ben Santer (more recent) where he applies the same type of extraction procedure to models. I’ll send this separately as it is large. In case it is too large here is the reference.
Santer, B.D., Wigley, T.M.L., Doutriaux, C., Boyle, J.S., Hansen,J.E., Jones, P.D., Meehl, G.A., Roeckner, E., Sengupta, S. and Taylor K.E., 2001: Accounting for the effects of volcanoes and ENSO in comparisons of modeled and observed temperature trends. Journal
of Geophysical Research 106, 2803328059.
Finally I’ve attached a paper I wrote in 1990, where I did something similar to what they did. I looked at residuals from a Gaussian filter, and I added the smoothed data back afterwards. I was working at the annual timescale and I did have many more years.
At 00:19 25/07/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
Grant Foster (‘Tamino’) did a nice job in a previous response (attached) we wrote to a similarly bad article by Schwartz which got a lot of play in contrarian circles. since he’s already done some of the initial work in debunking this, I sent him an email asking hi if we was interested in spearheading a similar effort w/ this one.
let me get back to folks after I’ve heard back from him, and we can discuss possible strategy for moving this forward,
On Jul 24, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Kia orana All from the Tropical South Pacific
Yes, Phil, a bit like ‘A midsummer night’s dream!’. and Gavin Tamino’s bang up job is great, And good that you go up with stuff on Real Climate, Mike. As Kevin is preoccupied, for the scientific record we need a rebuttal somewhere pulled together. Who wants to join in on the multiauthored effort?? I am happy to coordinate it. Return to ‘winter’ this evening after enjoying a balmy south east trades and sunny dry 24 C in the Cook Islands.
Quoting Michael Mann <[email protected]>:
folks, we’re going to go up w/ something brief on RealClimate later today, mostly just linking to other useful deconstructions of the paper already up on other sites,
On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:01 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
I am tied up next week, but could frame something up the following week which , I hope would be multi-authored. It would be quite good to have a rebuttal from the same Department at Uni of Auckland (which Glenn McGregor of IJC is director of)!
I haven’t had tne oportunity to download the text here in the Cook Islands, so this would give me the opportunity to do that.
Who else wants to join in??
Quoting Kevin Trenberth <[email protected]>:
I am on vacation today and don’t have the time. I have been on travel the past 4 weeks (including AR5 IPCC scoping mtg); the NCAR summer Colloquium is coming up in a week and then I am off to Oz and NZ for 3 weeks (GEWEX/iLeaps, CEOP) and I have an oceanobs’09 plenary paper to do.
Kevin a formal comment to JGR seems like a worthwhile undertaking here.
contrarians will continue to cite the paper regardless of whether or not its been rebutted, but for the purpose of future scientific assessments, its important that this be formally rebutted in
the peer-reviewed literature.
On Jul 23, 2009, at 9:05 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Thanks for the pro-activeness. Is there an opportunity to write a letter to JGR pointing out the junk science in this??….if it is not rebutted, then all sceptics will use this to justify their position.
And that is just on of the 29 emails that Jim Salinger features in.
Climate Depot has an constantlyÂ updated round up of the spread of the news of the lies. The leftist media like to say hacked, but it is clear that the extent of the emails obtained that this was no hack, this was a Deep Throat whistleblower.
Here are the latest links;
Wash Post: Scientists’ e-mails deriding skeptics of warming become public – Reveals ‘blatant displays of personal pettiness, unethical conniving, and twisting the science to support their political position’
Rush Limbaugh Praises Climate Depot: ‘It’s a great place to keep up on the global warming debate’ – ‘Morano’s probably single-handedly, in a civilian sense, the guy (other than me, of course) doing a better job of ringing the bells alarming people of what’s going on here’
Climate Fear Promoters Fret: ‘This is going to be politically costly no matter what’ – ‘No matter how trivial the actual ‘in context’ revelations turn out to be, the public will remember the initial Denier spin’
This will go down in history as the greatest fraud perpetrated on mankind by scientists and polticians ever.