30 Years of Global Cooling Are Coming, Retarded pseudo-Journalists Say

[PETE'S BROTHER]

C ?

[kwame k]

C ?

Trick question, maybe

[Nickdfresh]

The potential criminality of the Climategate scandal is exactly the issue that is being investigated by authorities in Britain. The British Parliament has convened hearings to investigate East Anglia University and the Climate Research Unit to uncover unethical and illegal activities. As more information is revealed, the whole Climategate affair begins to take on the makings of a good mystery novel. Like any good mystery or crime plot, the web of involvement is widespread.

Are they investigating the people who illegally hacked them?

...Is the WWF a member of these "communities"? The question must be asked whether the WWF is a tool of market manipulation?

With $31 billion in carbon credits being traded on the European Climate Exchange, there is certainly an incentive to commit fraud....
American Thinker: Climategate: Is It Criminal?

Oh Christ, who gives a fuck about all this? It was ONE university and much of it was completely taken out of context, and these scientists are certainly no more guilty than the corporate shill, whore right wing politicians on the take of lobbyists for polluters...

[FORD]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FIkddzPk9xg&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_ US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FIkddzPk9xg&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_ US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Dr. Love]

definitive proof against global warming

<object width="512" height="296"><param name="movie" value="http://www.hulu.com/embed/PO5neH7p2P3JVppwhJuA-A"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.hulu.com/embed/PO5neH7p2P3JVppwhJuA-A" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" width="512" height="296"></embed></object>

[BigBadBrian]

[Seshmeister]

.....

[Baby's On Fire]

Where I live in "cold Canada", we have had virtually ZERO snow this winter...at most half an inch and it melted within days. MOST days have been well above freezing, with about 5 cold days since December.

Last year, in January, a dude walked past my house in shorts and a T-shirt...cuz it was about + 15 Celsius.

January 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009.....INSECTS were flying in the air it was so warm...trees were budding.

We haven't had a real winter since the late 1980s....IF we get snow...it melts within days.

And I live just outside the so-called snow belt.

Global cooling...my fucking ass.

[Fuct Jup]

Climategate scientist admits There has been no global warming since 1995

* Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
* There has been no global warming since 1995
* Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made Changes


The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.
Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.
The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.
Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.
The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Following the leak of the emails, Professor Jones has been accused of ‘scientific fraud’ for allegedly deliberately suppressing information and refusing to share vital data with critics.
Discussing the interview, the BBC’s environmental analyst Roger Harrabin said he had spoken to colleagues of Professor Jones who had told him that his strengths included integrity and doggedness but not record-keeping and office tidying.
Mr Harrabin, who conducted the interview for the BBC’s website, said the professor had been collating tens of thousands of pieces of data from around the world to produce a coherent record of temperature change.
That material has been used to produce the ‘hockey stick graph’ which is relatively flat for centuries before rising steeply in recent decades.
According to Mr Harrabin, colleagues of Professor Jones said ‘his office is piled high with paper, fragments from over the years, tens of thousands of pieces of paper, and they suspect what happened was he took in the raw data to a central database and then let the pieces of paper go because he never realised that 20 years later he would be held to account over them’.
Asked by Mr Harrabin about these issues, Professor Jones admitted the lack of organisation in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share

But he denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made.
Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: ‘There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be.
‘There’s a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.’
He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.

He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.
And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled.
Sceptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries.
But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world.
Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: ‘There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.
‘For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.
‘Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.’
Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.
Professor Jones criticised those who complained he had not shared his data with them, saying they could always collate their own from publicly available material in the US. And he said the climate had not cooled ‘until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend’.
Mr Harrabin told Radio 4’s Today programme that, despite the controversies, there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific view that climate change was largely man-made.
But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones’s ‘excuses’ for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and ‘mates’.
He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates.
He added that the professor’s concessions over medieval warming were ‘significant’ because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fbslGUBQ

[Fuct Jup]

The professor’s amazing climate change retreat

Untold billions of pounds have been spent on turning the world green and also on financing the dubious trade in carbon credits.

Countless gallons of aviation fuel have been consumed carrying experts, lobbyists and politicians to apocalyptic conferences on global warming.
Every government on Earth has changed its policy, hundreds of academic institutions, entire school curricula and the priorities of broadcasters and newspapers all over the world have been altered – all to serve the new doctrine that man is overheating the planet and must undertake heroic and costly changes to save the world from drowning as the icecaps melt.
You might have thought that all this was based upon well-founded, highly competent research and that those involved had good reason for their blazing, hot-eyed certainty and their fierce intolerance of dissent.
But, thanks to the row over leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit, we now learn that this body’s director, Phil Jones, works in a disorganised fashion amid chaos and mess.
Interviewed by the highly sympathetic BBC, which still insists on describing the leaked emails as ‘stolen’, Professor Jones has conceded that he ‘did not do a thorough job’ of keeping track of his own records.

His colleagues recall that his office was ‘often surrounded by jumbled piles of papers’.
Even more strikingly, he also sounds much less ebullient about the basic theory, admitting that there is little difference between global warming rates in the Nineties and in two previous periods since 1860 and accepting that from 1995 to now there has been no statistically significant warming.
He also leaves open the possibility, long resisted by climate change activists, that the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ from 800 to 1300 AD, and thought by many experts to be warmer than the present period, could have encompassed the entire globe.

This is an amazing retreat, since if it was both global and warmer, the green movement’s argument that our current position is ‘unprecedented’ would collapse.
It is quite reasonable to suggest that human activity may have had some effect on climate.

There is no doubt that careless and greedy exploitation has done much damage to the planet.

But in the light of the ‘Climategate’ revelations, it is time for governments, academics and their media cheerleaders to be more modest in their claims and to treat sceptics with far more courtesy.
The question is not settled.


'Supertaxes' always failThe Treasury appears to have waved goodbye to large sums of money it could have collected in tax from the super-rich, thanks to a poorly designed attempt to help the film industry.

Compare and contrast this laxity with the inescapable tax burden on ordinary people whose income is taxed at source and who are pursued with severity for every penny.
This sort of inequality is the direct result of ever more ‘creative’ attempts to use the tax system for social engineering.

As HM Revenue and Customs will find when the new 50 pence tax rate is imposed in April, higher rates stimulate the rich into ever more ingenious efforts to avoid paying up.
Taxes should be simple, low and fair. Then everyone will pay them.


Read more: MAIL ON SUNDAY COMMENT: The professor's amazing climate change retreat | Mail Online

[Fuct Jup]

Climategate Review Member Resigns

Within hours of the launch of an independent panel to investigate claims that climate scientists covered up flawed data on temperatures rises, one member has been forced to resign after skeptics questioned his impartiality.

In an interview last year with Chinese State Radio, enquiry panel member Philip Campbell, editor-in-chief of Nature said: "The scientists have not hidden the data. If you look at the emails there is one or two bits of language that are jargon used between professionals that suggest something to outsiders that is wrong."

He went on: "In fact the only problem there has been is on some official restrictions on their ability to disseminate data otherwise they have behaved as researchers should."

Dr Campbell, was invited to sit on the enquiry panel because of his expertise in the peer review process as editor of one of the world’s leading science journals.

The journal has published some of the leading papers on climate change research, including those supporting the now famous "hockey stick" graph, the subject of intense criticism by climate sceptics.

Dr Campbell has now withdrawn his membership of the panel, telling Channel 4 News: "I made the remarks in good faith on the basis of media reports of the leaks.

"As I have made clear subsequently, I support the need to for a full review of the facts behind the leaked e-mails.

"There must be nothing that calls into question the ability of the independent Review to complete this task, and therefore I have decided to withdraw from the team."

The interview, posted on the Bishop Hill blog, run by climate sceptic Andrew Montford, will come as an embarrassment to the enquiry's chair Sir Muir Russell.

At a press conference this morning to launch the panel, the experienced civil servant and former vice-chancellor of Glasgow University, emphasised his hand-picked panel's impartiality.

A press release about the panel read: "They were selected on the basis that they have no prejudicial interest in climate change and climate science and for the contribution they can make to the issues of the review."

Speaking this evening, Muir Russell said "I have spoken to Philip Campbell, and I understand why he has withdrawn. I regret the loss of his expertise, but I respect his decision."

The revelation is evidence of the well-organised and highly-motivated campaign by climate change sceptics that has already used the emails leaked from University of East Anglia to make allegations about the validity of climate change science.

They have also been swift to attack errors in the influential United Nations intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) report on the science of climate change, published in 2007.

Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Changement said: "Some commentators have already taken on the role of judge and jury, pronouncing on the guilt of those involved and calling for their resignations.

"The Review team need to be fair to all concerned, but they may ultimately have difficulty persuading people to accept a verdict that does not match the conclusions that they have already reached themselves."

According to Ward, those with dissenting views about the dangers of climate change feel they have not been represented on the enquiry’s panel.

"They’re motivation here is probably because Nature published most of the papers on climate change that they are trying to discredit," he said.

"Who is actually carrying out this review?" leading climate sceptic Steve McIntyre told Channel 4 News.

"I think you need to have some truly independent statisticians or even people who are from unrelated fields."

"Some of the habits in the field are quite deeply rooted, and people have lost perspective on the type of assumptions and statistical bodges that are being done in this particular field," he said.

The Independent Climate Change Email Review will only be assessing the conduct of researchers at the UEA, not the conclusions of their scientific research.

They will examine the 1000 emails and 3000 other files hacked from the University, 160MB of data in total.

Under scrutiny will be analyses based on tree ring data, weather stations and reference to a "trick" and "hiding the decline" included in the emails.

The panel will also examine how the UEA researchers conducted peer review and whether they manipulated or suppressed information or whether, as one of the leaked emails suggests, controversial data was deliberately deleted.

"This review is about scientific rigour and honesty," Sir Muir said.

"We will investigate whether there is evidence of poor scientific practice and data management, which could call the CRU research into question.

However, the University of East Anglia also announced today that they would be working with the esteemed Royal Society to reassess the scientific conclusions of researchers working at the university's Climatic Research Unit.

"Published papers from CRU have gone through the rigorous and intensive peer review process, which is the keystone for maintaining the integrity of scientific research," said Professor Trevor Davies, the University's Pro-Vice- Chancellor for Research.

"Colleagues in the CRU have strenuously defended their conduct and the published work and we believe it is in the interests of all concerned that there should be an additional assessment considering the science itself."

The six-member panel now has a vacancy and will examine whether researchers abused the scientific process or deliberately withheld information from the public after emails were hacked from the University’s servers.

Like Sir Muir's enquiry, the East Anglia review is due to report "sometime in the spring"

'Climate-gate' review member resigns - Channel 4 News

[Seshmeister]

Daily Mail?

LMAO!

[Igosplut]

I still think the truth lies somewhere in the middle of all this....

[chefcraig]

Daily Mail?

LMAO!

Further "Breaking News" Headlines from the Daily Mail:

Killing with kindness: Indulgent grandparents 'overfeed' kids and make them fat, scientists warn

Gardener 'lost it' and battered lecturer lover to death with a rock after 'she goaded him about his manhood'

Human fly scales wall using two vacuum cleaners he bought at Tesco

The girl whose hair fell out after using new Pantene shampoo

Freediver breaks record for holding breath underwater... for 19 minutes and 21 seconds | Mail Online

[Seshmeister]

My favorite is the website that has compiled all their cancer stories.

Kill or cure?