The Great Global Warming Swindle

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;

We’re all struggling. What do we call this scandal?

It’s in fact a conspiracy of many of the world’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 sceptic’s death, character assassination of sceptics. admissions of using “tricks” to “hide” 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 there’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 the  keyword “moron” yields an interesting email.  So does typing in the name of a prominent climate “bulldog”.

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.
Cheers
Phil
At 00:19 25/07/2009, Michael Mann wrote:

Hi Jim,
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,
mike

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.
Jim

Quoting Michael Mann [3]<[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,
mike

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??
Jim

Quoting Kevin Trenberth [4]<[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.
mike

On Jul 23, 2009, at 9:05 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:

Hi All
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.
Jim

And that is just on of the 29 emails that Jim Salinger features in.

Climate Depot has an constantly  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;

Fox News: Climate Skeptics See ‘Smoking Gun’ Evidence of Collusion Among Climatologists and Manipulation of Data’

Update: ‘CRU director admits emails seem to be genuine’ — Climatic Research Unit Hacked? ‘Warmist conspiracy exposed?’

‘The warmist conspiracy: The emails that most damn Phil Jones’

Update: CRU Emails – Searchable Database Set Up

NY Times: Hacked E-Mails Fuel Climate Change Skeptics — ‘Revelations are bound to inflame the public debate as negotiators prepare to hammer out an international climate accord’

NPR: Climate Skeptics Pounce On E-Mails Hackers Got From U.K. Scientists’ Files

Media Taking Notice: UK Telegraph: ‘Climategate': ‘The final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?

UK Guardian: Climate skeptics claim leaked emails are ‘smoking gun’ evidence of collusion among scientists

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’

‘Climate Pentagon Papers’

‘A scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science’

RealClimate.org spins: ‘Posting private correspondence without permission is unethical’

Climatologist Roy Spencer on scandal: The ‘data has been manipulated in order to get results that best suit pro-anthropogenic global warming agenda of UN IPCC’

‘Hockey Stick’ Inventor Michael Mann: ‘As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations’

Claim: Inconvenient Release: UK’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has apparently been hacked – ‘hundreds of files released’ — If true, offers inside peek into climate establishment

Michael Mann email: ‘definitely overstates any singular confidence I have in my own (Mann et al) series’

Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to ‘contain’ the putative Medieval Warm Period’

Aussie Daily Telegraph: ‘If these scientists had the doubts they appear to have had concerning global warming, they should have gone public with those doubts’

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’

UK Telegraph: Climategate: How the MSM reported the greatest scandal in modern science

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’

UK Telegraph: ‘For links to all the latest updates on this, I recommend Marc Morano’s invaluable Climate Depot site’

WSJ: Skeptics ‘see blood in the water’ — Files reveal scientists apparently making references to things like ‘hiding the decline’ in temps

Scientist changes graphs to eliminate cooling? ‘I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve’

Climate Audit’s Steve McIntrye: ‘Words Fail Me’

Skeptics exiled: ‘We could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted’

Physicist on alleged behavior of CRU scientists: ‘These people should be put in jail as soon as possible’

‘If they are real and not fake, this is absolute dynamite, and will destroy the credibility of the alarmist cause’

There ‘are just so many small details that were just impossible to fake’

Claim: UN IPCC Lead Author Admits: ‘The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment’

‘If legit, this apparently devastating series of revelations will be very hard for the media to ignore’

‘Leaked FOIA files 62 mb of gold': Reveals scientists ‘being happy with the death of skeptics’

Claim: ‘Somebody with the name of Phil Jones says that he would rather destroy the CRU data than release it to McIntyre’

May sully the reputations of a number of working scientists’

This will go down in history as the greatest fraud perpetrated on mankind by scientists and polticians ever.

Tagged:
  • Pingback: Twitted by Whaleoil()

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention The Great Global Warming Swindle | Whale Oil Beef Hooked | Gotcha! -- Topsy.com()

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/billhicks billhicks

    AS this being fraud,these people deserve to go to jail….After a public stoning

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Chiefsfan73 Chiefsfan73

    Thanks for breaking this story. I saw this on a facebook group this morning. The sooner and wider this gets airplay the better. These liar's cheats and frauds need to be brought to account.
    The brazenness of their lies, knows no bounds. On Australian Morning TV today, OZ climate change minister (that there is one is a joke) got stuck in to the truth seekers (aka dangerous deniers). She made the bold claim that the south east of Australia was becoming increasingly dry. I have check the govts own meteorology website as I live in Western Victoria (Southe east Oz) the average rainfall for the first 30 years of the 20th century was 692 per annum, for the last 30 it was 870 odd. The only thing dry is the arguements the warmists put forward, there is a definite evidence drought.
    They are quick to point to heat waves and water shortages in major cities Thompson dam was the last new capacity added to the network 25 years ago. A quater of a century of population growth with no additional increase in capacity D'uh.

    This whole thing pisses me right off

    Get stuck in WO. I'd love to join any campaign.

    • mediatart

      Thats right the so called Federation drought. Usually ignored by only starting the temperatures at 1910.

      These so called scientists are also leadinging lights at the IPCC, Controlling sections of the 5 yearly reports.
      This emailfrom one person was perceptive as they proposed to throw science debate under the bus in order to get what they want- ps the De Freitas mentioned is from Auckland University- he was the Editor of a Climate Journal, and is also has sceptical leanings

      rom: P
      To: “M
      Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
      Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
      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. K and <bold>I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is ! </bold>

  • mediatart

    AS for 'private' correspondence. All these people are on the public payroll at Universities and or Government bodies. Ie the recent sacked Salinger.- thats another story !!

    So their correspondence would have been subject to OIA requests anyway.

    I think it should be made clear, this is only a fairly small group of climate manipulators, but the work they were dealing with was at the heart of the AGW swindle in that they dealt with temperature records such as the previously discredited hockey stick

  • Adolf Fiinkensein

    Adolf is a techno-neanderthal but somewhere in his dim recesses is recalled the notion that when you delete e-mails they don't actually disappear. Isn't there sill a copy somewhere for the savvy geek to find?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Whaleoil Whaleoil

      Yes, in many places

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Chiefsfan73 Chiefsfan73

    Wakey Wakey pollies, the blogosphere is on the case. The ETS and race based troughing had better die now, or the blogosphere, now awoken will rise up and bite you where it hurts.

    It brought down, Klark and Peters, don't think you are beyond its grasp.

  • TC

    I’ve been reading this stuff all afternoon – it is the best stuff I’ve read in a long time – I hope these ‘scientists’ have fall-back careers or are close to retirement, as they’re scientific/academic careers are toast.

    Copenhagen is dead… long live capitalism and CO2.

  • Maurice at the Mount

    Any MP who votes for any form of an ETS is committing FRAUD period.

  • http://www.facebook.com/MikeEnz Michael Mikee Earley

    Still nothing in the NZ Media about it..

    • Kevin

      NZ Herald had a small article on Monday

  • http://mickysmuses.blogspot.com Ayrdale

    Andrew Revkin of the NY Times (not usually at all sympathetic to warming sceptics) has a well balanced piece here…

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/your

    Note the CRU statement…

    "…we will ourselves be conducting a review, with external support, into the circumstances surrounding the theft and publication of this information and any issues emerging from it."

0%