ClimateGate

Despite the rhetoric of Obama and other lying Pinkos Carbonhagen is nothing but a failure. Like modern day King Canutes they think they are going to halt the rise in temperatures just by saying it will be so. The fact that temperatures aren’t rising has escaped them all, though what’s the bet they claim the coming little Ice age on their efforts at combating “Climate Change”.

About the only good thing to come out of Carbonhagen was the superb negotiating skills of Tim Groser, who much to the envy and jealousy of Nick Smith got to sit on the international stage with a proposal that will actually put some cash in our pockets rather than Nick Smith’s daft ETS which will wreck the economy. It was beautiful just to watch Smith’s pus-face look (at about 1:28) as Groser took the stage.

Nick Smith is looking forlorn (prob because he opposed this and Groser has succeeded in doing something – agriculture emissions account for 14% of the global total, so if the alliance can halve them, that would be a 7% cut in global emissions – the biggest single practical thing ever to come out of climate change talks (and of benefit to NZ even when climate change is found to be a hoax, because it will have wider environmental benefits such as reducing pollution in rivers).

Nick Smith opposes this, because if Groser’s initiative leads to a 7% cut in global emissions there would be little need for NZ to have an ETS (given our total domestic emissions are only 0.2% of the global total).  While Smith fucks around trying to get a 0.002% reduction in global emissions through the NZ ETS, Groser’s alliance may cut them by 7%, or 3,500 times as much as Smith’s ETS!

Meanwhile the traitor Sustainability Council’s Simon Terry believes that when a tree is harvested, all the carbon in it immediately turns into a gas and goes into the atmosphere.  He has never heard of houses, tables, bookcases, paper ….  or anything made of wood. The traitor man is an idiot

“What climate tracker has yet to report is that there are essentially no gains for the environment from New Zealand’s pledge on current plans, just the temporary storage of emissions in trees that are to be chopped down in the 2020s,” he said.
“Those trees time-shift the emissions reduction burden to another generation (but) they do not reduce emissions long term.”

Matthew Hooton noted as much in his NBR column on Friday, which NBR strangely still doesn’t put online or even behind the paywall, while Farrar’s drivel is now pay-per-view.

The alliance is based on three common-sense observations, accepted by everyone but warmist extremists and UN and New Zealand climate bureaucrats.

The first is that, ultimately, only research, development and application of new technology can reduce net greenhouse emissions – unless, of course, the world accepts the environmental movement’s real agenda of a collapse in global population and living standards to pre-industrial times.

All other initiatives are mere money shuffling and nonsense, including our environmentally pointless yet economically vandalous ETS, and the communiqué set to emerge from Copenhagen this weekend – once it’s bashed out overnight without anyone understanding it, as happened at Kyoto.

Second is, if New Zealand genuinely wants to do something about climate change, it should act in areas where it is already a world leader and has something meaningful to offer.

Paying medieval indulgences to Russia and Ukraine under the Kyoto system fails this test.  So does deliberately harming our economy with the ETS, especially with New Zealand producing just 0.2% of global emissions.

The phrase “punching above our weight” has rightly been banned by Mr Groser, Murray McCully and new MFAT chief executive John Allen.  They understand that New Zealand gains nothing from pretending to be something it is not, like the annoying third former trying to get entry to the seventh-form common room.  The alliance is not about “punching above our weight” but focussing on an area, agricultural science, where New Zealand is already the global heavyweight and getting entry on our merits.

With 50% of domestic and 14% of global greenhouse gases coming from agriculture, it is the one area where New Zealand has an opportunity to contribute meaningfully to cutting emissions – and, if you believe the hype, saving the planet from imminent destruction.

Ultimately though, Carbonhagen has proven to be a massive disappointment to the most hardened Green apostles and for that we should be grateful.

The fight goes on however amongst our small band of Climate realists who reject the proven lies and falsehoods of the scientists.

Lord Monckton is demanding answers from Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – and not just over his use of dodgy data in his presentation where he told no less than 18 lies about the climate and the science.

The fraud must be exposed and the rationale behind ceding our sovereignty to a global bunch of bureaucrats must be fought with every breathe.

It is heartening that without fail every left wing blog is aghast at the failure of Carbonhagen.

National hastily amended Labours silly ETS so that John Key could wave a piece of paper at Carbonhagen. Of course he was promptly ignored in favour of a bigger liar when it came to climate change, Kevin Rudd.

Now we hear that Carbonhagen is in disarray. The poor countries have worked out that they will stay poor and China has worked out the whole thing is a farce. In fact Carbonhagen has been nothing but a whole heap of hot air.

Lord Monckton covered the Liar in Chief’s speech in detail and it is posted at Watts Up With That. A better fisking of a speech you will not see. Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC basically lied from beginning to end. Perhaps the only truthful part of his speech was when he named himself.

Both Andrew Bolt and Tim Blair have noted that the people who want a Copenhagen deal look like this. Do these people really look like the kind who’d know best how to run your economy?

The tragedy of Copenhagen is that people expect that all those politicians and governments are supposedly going to put in place a system to save the planet. These are the same governments and politicians that can’t run health systems, or public housing, or welfare systems and we are expected to believe they can solve global warming.

Come on people, wake up, You are being conned.

It looks like the beginning of the end of the argument that the science is settled. When pinko major news channels start running debates with graphics says “Global Warming, Trick or Truth?” then you know the argument is lost and lost by the warmists.

Climategate is at last going mainstream.

CNN is owned by one of the richest pinkos and he sure as hell has editorial control over CNN. The Warmists are becoming the new deniers, they always deny the emails are true, they always deny the emails don’t say the things they do. Who are the deniers now?

Al Gore can’t even get basic facts about the emails right. It is interesting that the same pinkos who fed off of Nicky Hager’s stolen emails are now all aghast about the emails leaked by patriot.

From Wattsupwiththat

If you need a good explanation about the Urban Heat Island (UHI) and why homogenisation of data like what NIWA does is a farce then don’t bother asking NIWA for an explanation ask a sixth grader. he even used more weather stations than NIWA.

From The Foresight Institute

One thing that Climategate does is give us an opportunity to step back from the details of the AGW argument and say, maybe these are heat-of-the-moment stuff, and in the long run will look as silly as the Durants’ allergy to Eisenhower. And perhaps, if we can put climate arguments in perspective, it will allow us to put the much smaller nano arguments (pun intended) into perspective too.

So let’s look at some ice.

I’m looking at the temperature record as read from this central Greenland ice core. It gives us about as close as we can come to a direct, experimental measurement of temperature at that one spot for the past 50,000 years.  As far as I know, the data are not adjusted according to any fancy computer climate model or anything else like that.

So what does it tell us about, say, the past 500 years? Well, whaddaya know — a hockey stick.  In fact, the “blade” continues up in the 20th century at least another half a degree.  But how long is the handle? How unprecedented is the current warming trend?

Yes, Virginia, there was a Medieval Warm Period, in central Greenland at any rate.  But we knew that — that’s when the Vikings were naming it Greenland, after all.  And the following Little Ice Age is what killed them off, and caused widespread crop failures (and the consequent burning of witches) across Europe.  But was the MWP itself unusual?

Well, no — over the period of recorded history, the average temperature was about equal to the height of the MWP .  Rises not only as high, but as rapid, as the current hockey stick blade have been the rule, not the exception.

In fact for the entire Holocene — the period over which, by some odd coincidence, humanity developed agriculture and civilization — the temperature has been higher than now, and the trend over the past 4000 years is a marked decline.  From this perspective, it’s the LIA that was unusual, and the current warming trend simply represents a return to the mean.  If it lasts.

From the perspective of the Holocene as a whole, our current hockeystick is beginning to look pretty dinky. By far the possibility I would worry about, if I were the worrying sort, would be the return to an ice age — since interglacials, over the past half million years or so, have tended to last only 10,000 years or so.  And Ice ages are not conducive to agriculture.

… and ice ages have a better claim on being the natural state of Earth’s climate than interglacials.  This next graph, for the longest period, we have to go to an Antarctic core (Vostok):

In other words, we’re pretty lucky to be here during this rare, warm period in climate history.  But the broader lesson is, climate doesn’t stand still.  It doesn’t even stand stay on the relatively constrained range of the last 10,000 years for more than about 10,000 years at a time.

Does this mean that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas? No.

Does it mean that it isn’t warming? No.

Does it mean that we shouldn’t develop clean, efficient technology that gets its energy elsewhere than burning fossil fuels?  Of course not.  We should do all those things for many reasons — but there’s plenty of time to do them the right way, by developing nanotech.  (There’s plenty of money, too, but it’s all going to climate science at the moment. ) And that will be a very good thing to have done if we do fall back into an ice age, believe me.

For climate science it means that the Hockey Team climatologists’ insistence that human-emitted CO2 is the only thing that could account for the recent warming trend is probably poppycock.

As David Farrar would say Indeed!

Al Gore decided to not go to Copenhagen and instead inflicted the Gore Effect on the Continental US. Meanwhile he has givevn an interview where he shows he is either utterly stupid or contemptuous liar. I’m picking the latter.

Q: How damaging to your argument was the disclosure of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University?

A: To paraphrase Shakespeare, it’s sound and fury signifying nothing. I haven’t read all the e-mails, but the most recent one is more than 10 years old. These private exchanges between these scientists do not in any way cause any question about the scientific consensus.

Really! Oh dear Al, clearly you ether haven’t read them or are deliberately lying as a smokescreen:

Q: There is a sense in these e-mails, though, that data was hidden and hoarded, which is the opposite of the case you make [in your book] about having an open and fair debate.

A: I think it’s been taken wildly out of context. The discussion you’re referring to was about two papers that two of these scientists felt shouldn’t be accepted as part of the IPCC report. Both of them, in fact, were included, referenced, and discussed. So an e-mail exchange more than 10 years ago including somebody’s opinion that a particular study isn’t any good is one thing, but the fact that the study ended up being included and discussed anyway is a more powerful comment on what the result of the scientific process really is.

Oh he just did it again, the smokescreen is getting thicker than his lies.

These people are examining what they can or should do to deal with the P.R. dimensions of this, but where the scientific consensus is concerned, it’s completely unchanged. What we’re seeing is a set of changes worldwide that just make this discussion over 10-year-old e-mails kind of silly.

And again, can the man not tell the truth?

Wattsupwiththat shows just how wrong Al Gore is.

These emails show that the scientist were corrupt, the raw data shows that even that is corrupted and Al Gore’s obfuscations show just how utterly corrupt he is too.

From Watts Up with That? (BTW, this guy should forever be honoured in every country in the world)

People keep saying “Yes, the Climategate scientists behaved badly. But that doesn’t mean the data is bad. That doesn’t mean the earth is not warming.”

Let me start with the second objection first. The earth has generally been warming since the Little Ice Age, around 1650. There is general agreement that the earth has warmed since then. See e.g. Akasufo . Climategate doesn’t affect that.

The second question, the integrity of the data, is different. People say “Yes, they destroyed emails, and hid from Freedom of information Acts, and messed with proxies, and fought to keep other scientists’ papers out of the journals … but that doesn’t affect the data, the data is still good.” Which sounds reasonable.

There are three main global temperature datasets. One is at the CRU, Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, where we’ve been trying to get access to the raw numbers. One is at NOAA/GHCN, the Global Historical Climate Network. The final one is at NASA/GISS, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The three groups take raw data, and they “homogenize” it to remove things like when a station was moved to a warmer location and there’s a 2C jump in the temperature. The three global temperature records are usually called CRU, GISS, and GHCN. Both GISS and CRU, however, get almost all of their raw data from GHCN. All three produce very similar global historical temperature records from the raw data.

And then he embarks on a study of how GHCN has manipulated the raw data. The same raw data that is used by CRU and manipulated again.

Here is what he has found. Instead of this data, which shows cooling, being used for the raw data to plot temperature in Darwin, they used this crooked one. They have cooked the raw data before disseminating it, they call it homogeneity and here is what they did to the raw data to homogenise it at Darwin.

What I call that is fraud, lies, scandal and corruption. If the raw data from GHCN is bent and from the graphs it sure is bent, like instead of a reverse hockey stick it is bent into a Mann type hockey stick, then every model, every calculation, every agreement, every report is corrupted in the same way. Go and read the whole post, then come back hear and I dare you to say the science is settled.

The science isn’t settled, it is destroyed. In a few years having Climate Scientist on your resume will doom you to a life of unemployment. The information just keeps on building. Bernie Madoff and Ken Lay were nothing compared to this. They should be pardoned really because their fraud was small change compared to this fraud about to be perpetrated on the world.

What this does show is that there is at least one temperature station where the trend has been artificially increased to give a false warming where the raw data shows cooling. In addition, the average raw data for Northern Australia is quite different from the adjusted, so there must be a number of … mmm … let me say “interesting” adjustments in Northern Australia other than just Darwin.

And with the Latin saying “Falsus in unum, falsus in omis” (false in one, false in all) as our guide, until all of the station “adjustments” are examined, adjustments of CRU, GHCN, and GISS alike, we can’t trust anyone using homogenized numbers.

Halt this nonsense now. Stand up and shout at your MPs, shout over the Warmenisers. They have deceived you and you should be angry. I know I am.

The NZ Herald finally covers Climategate but not to explain how scientists have lied, manipulated and fiddled in order to produce dodgy statisitics. No they publish an article on how they are going to continue to do it.

NIWA’s David Wratt says that NIWA is going to publish the data for 18 weather stations that show New Zealand has been warming since 1931. It”s laughable really in the face of such a serious issue. NIWA has more than 18 stations in the Auckland region alone, let alone the rest of the country.

The repeater didn’t think to ask the obvious questions.

1. Why only those 18?
2. What happened to the previous 7?
3. How many weather stations does NIWA actually have?
4. Why isn’t that data available?
5. What are you hiding Mr Wratt?

Helpfully NIWA’s own site tells us that they have data from;

from about 6500 climate stations which have been operating for various periods since the earliest observations were made in the year 1850. The database continues to receive data from over 600 stations that are currently operating.

So, why when they have data from over 600 active weatherstations and over 6500 weatherstations in total do they show us the data of just 18. That is just 3% and a number too small to measure but less than 1% of total weatherstations. That is hardly representative of New Zealand’s climate.

Of course resident Warmeniser cheer leaders have held up the new 18 station graph as proof of warming. Helpfully they have told us which stations have been used. Now word of warning here, you may need to hold your sides to stop the pain from the laughter you are about to feel.

Raoul Island, Tauranga Airport, Ruakura (Hamilton), Gisborne Airport, Chateau Tongariro, Palmerston North DSIR/AgResearch, Westport Airport, Molesworth, Queenstown, Invercargill Airport and Campbell Island.

If anyone has an photos of these sites then please send them in.

Raoul Island – Bwahahahahahahaha, From Wikipedia, the largest and northernmost of the main Kermadec Islands, (located at 29°15′S 177°55′W / 29.25°S 177.917°W / -29.25; -177.917, 900 km SSW of ‘Ata Island of Tonga and 1100 km NNE of New Zealand’s North Island), has been the source of vigorous volcanic activity during the past several thousand years that was dominated by dacitic explosive eruptions. I wonder if those gasses escaping from the volcano might have contributed anything to the so called warming, but seriously they have included an island 1100 kilometres from the tip of the North Island.

Campbell Island – is situated 700 km south of New Zealand’s mainland and is a large sub-Antarctic island.

So of the new data from 11 new stations plus the secret 7 previously two are from islands that are amongst the remostest places on earth. Excuse me if I just don’t piss myself laughing. But wait there is more mirth from these tossposts. These special extra 11 stations were hand picked by Jim Salinger, yes the same one from the emails, because they show warming.

I repeat Dr, Mr, whatever title you like to use Wratt, where is ALL the data from ALL the stations….excuse me if you feel offended, its just that we don’t trust you or your organisation anymore.

The Climategate deniers think that this is just going to go away but I thinks this thing may get to see the light of day after all!!

It’s becoming more and more apparent from these interviews that are popping up that:

1) These interviewers have no idea what the skeptical argument actually is…..

2) They are hopeless researchers!!

The raw data needs to be released. We need to see what has been going on.