Climategate – The Great Global Warming Swindle – What Does The Data Really Say?

SEE THE WAGTV VIDEO HERE:    Video Link Restored

Click on start button – wait a few seconds for buffering – then click on screen.

Global Warming? The Boston Globe Reviews The Scientific Data

JEFF JACOBY
Where’s the global warming?
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | March 8, 2009

SUPPOSE the climate landscape in recent weeks looked something like this:

Half the country was experiencing its mildest winter in years, with no sign of snow in many Northern states. Most of the Great Lakes were ice-free. Not a single Canadian province had had a white Christmas. There was a new study discussing a mysterious surge in global temperatures – a warming trend more intense than computer models had predicted. Other scientists admitted that, because of a bug in satellite sensors, they had been vastly overestimating the extent of Arctic sea ice.

If all that were happening on the climate-change front, do you think you’d be hearing about it on the news? Seeing it on Page 1 of your daily paper? Would politicians be exclaiming that global warming was even more of a crisis than they’d thought? Would environmentalists be skewering global-warming “deniers” for clinging to their skepticism despite the growing case against it?

No doubt.

But it isn’t such hints of a planetary warming trend that have been piling up in profusion lately. Just the opposite.

The United States has shivered through an unusually severe winter, with snow falling in such unlikely destinations as New Orleans, Las Vegas, Alabama, and Georgia. On Dec. 25, every Canadian province woke up to a white Christmas, something that hadn’t happened in 37 years. Earlier this year, Europe was gripped by such a killing cold wave that trains were shut down in the French Riviera and chimpanzees in the Rome Zoo had to be plied with hot tea. Last week, satellite data showed three of the Great Lakes – Erie, Superior, and Huron – almost completely frozen over. In Washington, D.C., what was supposed to be a massive rally against global warming was upstaged by the heaviest snowfall of the season, which paralyzed the capital.

Meanwhile, the National Snow and Ice Data Center has acknowledged that due to a satellite sensor malfunction, it had been underestimating the extent of Arctic sea ice by 193,000 square miles – an area the size of Spain. In a new study, University of Wisconsin researchers Kyle Swanson and Anastasios Tsonis conclude that global warming could be going into a decades-long remission. The current global cooling “is nothing like anything we’ve seen since 1950,” Swanson told Discovery News. Yes, global cooling: 2008 was the coolest year of the past decade – global temperatures have not exceeded the record high measured in 1998, notwithstanding the carbon-dioxide that human beings continue to pump into the atmosphere.

Considering how much attention would have been lavished on a comparable run of hot weather or on a warming trend that was plainly accelerating, shouldn’t the recent cold phenomena and the absence of any global warming during the past 10 years be getting a little more notice? Isn’t it possible that the most apocalyptic voices of global-warming alarmism might not be the only ones worth listening to?

There is no shame in conceding that science still has a long way to go before it fully understands the immense complexity of the Earth’s ever-changing climate(s). It would be shameful not to concede it. The climate models on which so much global-warming alarmism rests “do not begin to describe the real world that we live in,” says Freeman Dyson, the eminent physicist and futurist. “The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand.”

But for many people, the science of climate change is not nearly as important as the religion of climate change. When Al Gore insisted yet again at a conference last Thursday that there can be no debate about global warming, he was speaking not with the authority of a man of science, but with the closed-minded dogmatism of a religious zealot. Dogma and zealotry have their virtues, no doubt. But if we want to understand where global warming has gone, those aren’t the tools we need

Climategate – The Hacked Emails: An Open Letter From Dr Judith Curry On The Loss Of Scientific Integrity In The Global Warming Debate

Reposted from Watts Up With That:

An open letter from Dr. Judith Curry on climate science

I asked Dr. Judith Curry if I could repost her letter which she originally sent to Climate Progress, here at WUWT.

From: Curry, Judith A
Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 2:10 PM
To: Anthony Watts – mobile
Subject: Re: request

Hi Anthony, by all means post it. I am trying to reach out to everyone, pls help in this effort.

Dr. Curry gets props from the skeptical community because she had the courage to invite Steve McIntyre to give a presentation at Georgia Tech, for which she took criticism. Her letter is insightful and addresses troubling issues. We can all learn something from it. – Anthony

An open letter to graduate students and young scientists in fields related to climate research – By Dr. Judith A. Curry, Georgia Tech

Based upon feedback that I’ve received from graduate students at Georgia Tech, I suspect that you are confused, troubled, or worried by what you have been reading about ClimateGate and the contents of the hacked CRU emails. After spending considerable time reading the hacked emails and other posts in the blogosphere, I wrote an essay that calls for greater transparency in climate data and other methods used in climate research. The essay is posted over at  http://camirror.wordpress.com/ 2009/ 11/ 22/ curry-on-the-credibility-of-climate-research/ .

What has been noticeably absent so far in the ClimateGate discussion is a public reaffirmation by climate researchers of our basic research values: the rigors of the scientific method (including reproducibility), research integrity and ethics, open minds, and critical thinking. Under no circumstances should we sacrifice any of these values; the CRU emails, however, appear to violate them.     ……

If climate science is to uphold core research values and be credible to (the) public, we need to respond to any critique of data or methodology that emerges from analysis by other scientists. Ignoring skeptics coming from outside the field is inappropriate; Einstein did not start his research career at Princeton, but rather at a post office. I’m not implying that climate researchers need to keep defending against the same arguments over and over again. Scientists claim that they would never get any research done if they had to continuously respond to skeptics. The counter to that argument is to make all of your data, metadata, and code openly available. Doing this will minimize the time spent responding to skeptics; try it! If anyone identifies an actual error in your data or methodology, acknowledge it and fix the problem.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/an-open-letter-from-dr-judith-curry-on-climate-science/

Climategate: Hackers ‘expose global warming con’: Sceptics claim that leaked emails reveal research centre falsified temperature data

One of the world’s leading climate change research centres has been accused of manipulating data on global warming after thousands of private emails and documents were leaked.

Hackers targeted the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and published the files, including some personal messages, on the internet.

Among the most damaging is one which appears to suggest using a ‘trick’ to massage years of temperature data to ‘hide the decline’.

The CRU, which plays a leading role in compiling UN reports and tracks long-term
changes in temperature, has repeatedly refused to provide detailed information about the data underlying the temperature records.

Climate change sceptics claim that some of the leaked messages discuss ways of manipulating data that fails to comply
with the establishment view that climate change is real and is being driven by man.

The email suggesting ‘hiding the decline’ is purported to be from Phil Jones, the unit’s director.

He denied trying to mislead, telling the TGIF digital newspaper he had no idea what he meant by the phrase.

One way of doing this would be by loading the panel of researchers who review papers ahead of publication with experts who are ‘on-message’.

Talk of a figure being ‘shoehorned’ into a report from the UN’s International Panel of Climate Change appears in another of the documents.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229740/Hackers-expose-global-warming-Claims-leaked-emails-reveal-research-centre-massaged-temperature-data.html?ITO=1490

and from the Wall Street Journal ………..

‘The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. . . . We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.”

So apparently wrote Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) and one of the world’s leading climate scientists, in a 2005 email to “Mike.” Judging by the email thread, this refers to Michael Mann, director of the Pennsylvania State University’s Earth System Science Center. We found this nugget among the more than 3,000 emails and documents released last week after CRU’s servers were hacked and messages among some of the world’s most influential climatologists were published on the Internet.

The “two MMs” are almost certainly Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, two Canadians who have devoted years to seeking the raw data and codes used in climate graphs and models, then fact-checking the published conclusions—a painstaking task that strikes us as a public and scientific service. Mr. Jones did not return requests for comment and the university said it could not confirm that all the emails were authentic, though it acknowledged its servers were hacked.

Yet even a partial review of the emails is highly illuminating. In them, scientists appear to urge each other to present a “unified” view on the theory of man-made climate change while discussing the importance of the “common cause”; to advise each other on how to smooth over data so as not to compromise the favored hypothesis; to discuss ways to keep opposing views out of leading journals; and to give tips on how to “hide the decline” of temperature in certain inconvenient data.

Some of those mentioned in the emails have responded to our requests for comment by saying they must first chat with their lawyers. Others have offered legal threats and personal invective. Still others have said nothing at all.

Yet all of these nonresponses manage to underscore what may be the most revealing truth: That these scientists feel the public doesn’t have a right to know the basis for their climate-change predictions, even as their governments prepare staggeringly expensive legislation in response to them.

Consider the following note that appears to have been sent by Mr. Jones to Mr. Mann in May 2008: “Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. . . . Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?” AR4 is shorthand for the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, presented in 2007 as the consensus view on how bad man-made climate change has supposedly become.

In another email that seems to have been sent in September 2007 to Eugene Wahl of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Paleoclimatology Program and to Caspar Ammann of the National Center for Atmospheric Research’s Climate and Global Dynamics Division, Mr. Jones writes: “[T]ry and change the Received date! Don’t give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with.”

When deleting, doctoring or withholding information didn’t work, Mr. Jones suggested an alternative in an August 2008 email to Gavin Schmidt of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, copied to Mr. Mann. “The FOI [Freedom of Information] line we’re all using is this,” he wrote. “IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI—the skeptics have been told this. Even though we . . . possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part of our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don’t have an obligation to pass it on.”

It also seems Mr. Mann and his friends weren’t averse to blacklisting scientists who disputed some of their contentions, or journals that published their work. “I think we have to stop considering ‘Climate Research’ as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal,” goes one email, apparently written by Mr. Mann to several recipients in March 2003. “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.”

Mr. Mann’s main beef was that the journal had published several articles challenging aspects of the anthropogenic theory of global warming.

For the record, when we’ve asked Mr. Mann in the past about the charge that he and his colleagues suppress opposing views, he has said he “won’t dignify that question with a response.” Regarding our most recent queries about the hacked emails, he says he “did not manipulate any data in any conceivable way,” but he otherwise refuses to answer specific questions. For the record, too, our purpose isn’t to gainsay the probity of Mr. Mann’s work, much less his right to remain silent.

However, we do now have hundreds of emails that give every appearance of testifying to concerted and coordinated efforts by leading climatologists to fit the data to their conclusions while attempting to silence and discredit their critics. In the department of inconvenient truths, this one surely deserves a closer look by the media, the U.S. Congress and other investigative bodies.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

READ SOME OF THE EMAILS HERE: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704779704574553652849094482.html

Associated Press: Record Antarctic Ice Sends Icebergs Careening Towards New Zealand

Icebergs head from Antarctica for New Zealand

AP

WELLINGTON, New Zealand – Ships are on alert and maritime authorities are monitoring the movements of hundreds of menacing icebergs drifting toward New Zealand in the southern Pacific Ocean, officials said.

The area is not a major shipping lane and few sailors are out in November — spring in the southern hemisphere — but ships that traverse the area have little hull protection and could be significantly damaged by a collision with an iceberg, which typically has 90 percent of its mass under water.

“It’s an alert to shipping to be aware these potential hazards are around and to be on the lookout for them,” Maritime New Zealand spokeswoman Sophie Hazelhurst said of an official navigation warning issued for the area south of the country.

Large numbers of icebergs last floated close to New Zealand in 2006, when some were visible from the coastline — the first such sighting since 1931.

The current flotilla of icebergs that split off Antarctic ice shelves are slowly drifting in the direction of New Zealand. The nearest one, measuring about 330 to 660 feet (100 to 200 meters) long, was 160 miles (260 kilometers) southeast of New Zealand’s Stewart Island on Tuesday, Australian glaciologist Neal Young said. He said it was impossible to tell from the satellite image how tall the iceberg is.

He couldn’t say how many icebergs in total were roaming the Pacific, but he counted 130 in one satellite image alone and 100 in another.

New Zealand oceanographer Mike Williams said the icebergs are drifting at a speed of about 25 kilometers (16 miles) a day and he expects most won’t reach New Zealand, similar to the 2006 flotilla, of which many were directed eastward away from the country by ocean currents and wind.

Williams, a scientist with the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, said he was “pretty sure these icebergs came from the break up of the Ross Sea Ice Shelf in 2000” — an ice shelf the size of France and the origin of the 2006 flotilla of icebergs.

The appearance of the bergs in waters south of New Zealand depends as much on weather patterns and ocean currents as on the rate at which icebergs are calving off Antarctic ice shelves.

In the current case, a cold snap around southern New Zealand and favorable ocean currents conspired to push the towering visitors, which have drifted around Antarctica for the past nine years, into the region’s ocean.

“Icebergs this far north (near New Zealand) are not that unusual,” said New Zealand glaciologist Dr. Wendy Lawson, noting that an iceberg’s reach was determined by its size.

“If an iceberg starts off large, it will last longer in the sea. Its movement and where it ends up is determined by the weather, wind, ocean currents and the temperature,” Lawson, head of the department of geography at Canterbury University, told The Associated Press.

On Monday, Rodney Russ, expedition leader on the tourist ship Spirit of Enderby, spotted an iceberg about 60 miles (100 kilometers) northeast of Macquarie Island and heading north — about 500 miles (800 kilometers) south of New Zealand. Australian scientists reported another mass of 20 icebergs drifting north past Macquarie Island two weeks ago.

Maritime New Zealand safety services general manager Nigel Clifford said as the icebergs drift closer, “the more the potential risks grow of them posing a hazard to shipping” as they break up and float lower in — or just under — the ocean surface.

The agency was “keeping a close eye on the increasing risk … it’s tracking iceberg positions and has begun initial planning for any incident,” he told the AP.

He noted the area is not a major shipping lane, with commercial fishing vessels and a limited number of passenger cruise ships passing through and reporting positions for the drifting ice.

Young said satellite images showed the group of icebergs, spread over a sea area of 600 miles by 440 miles (1,000 kilometers by 700 kilometers), moving on ocean currents away from Antarctica.

Icebergs are formed as ice shelves develop. Snow falls on the ice sheet and forms more ice, which flows to the edges of the floating ice shelves. Eventually, pieces around the edge break off.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091125/ap_on_sc/as_new_zealand_icebergs

Bureau Of Labor Statistics – 2.9 Million Fewer Job Openings Today – Employment “Separations” Continue To Outpace “New Hires”

The job openings rate was little changed in September at an enemic rate of 1.9 percent. The number of job openings has fallen by 2.3 million, or 48 percent, since the most recent peak in June 2007.
These data are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey and are seasonally adjusted. Data for the most recent month are preliminary and subject to revision. Find additional information in “ Job Openings and Labor Turnover—September 2009”. Hires are the total number of additions to the payroll occurring at any time during the reference month. Separations are the total number of terminations of employment occurring at any time during the reference month, and are reported by type of separation—quits, layoffs and discharges, and other separations.

Source: US Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics

 

 

Associated Press – Economy’s rebound not as strong as first thought – Growth Overstated By 25%

By JEANNINE AVERSA, AP Economics Writer Jeannine Aversa, Ap Economics Writer 10 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The economy is growing modestly, with consumers too wary about spending to invigorate the recovery.

That picture emerged Tuesday from reports on the nation’s economy and the confidence of consumers, who power 70 percent of it. The economy grew at a 2.8 percent rate last quarter — less than originally estimated. And forecasts for the current quarter are for similarly slight growth before a drop-off next year.

The main reasons are that consumers remain reluctant to spend, commercial construction has slipped and imports are dampening U.S. growth.

The Commerce Department’s new reading on gross domestic product was weaker than the 3.5 percent growth rate for the July-September period estimated just a month ago. The GDP, which measures the value of all goods and services produced in the United States, also was a tad weaker than the 2.9 percent growth rate that economists surveyed by Thomson Reuters had expected.

At the same time, the Conference Board’s latest survey of consumer confidence found that as retailers enter the crucial holiday season, shoppers remain gloomy. Unemployment and tight credit have sapped consumers’ willingness and ability to spend freely.

Also Tuesday, the Standard & Poor’s/Case-Shiller home price index of 20 major cities suggested that the housing market’s recovery is continuing, if only gradually. Home prices rose slightly in September. Compared with a year earlier, though, they remain down 9.4 percent.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091124/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_economy

Just like the bogus “jobs created or saved” numbers – the Obama Administration continues to politicize the numbers …. GDP growth was overstated by 35% and home sales – which are repeatedly touted as being “up” are in fact down between 9% and 10% from last year – one of the worst years on record ………

%d bloggers like this: