Politick

ClimateGate Exposes that the Real Data Shows No Excess Warming

Getting past the bad behavior of the climate cabal, the real news is that they do not have the data to support their warming case. 

This reconstructed email thread is devastating to their beliefs. These charts of little hockey sticks turn out to be bogus - the underlying data does not exist to support the charts. It is bad enough that the computer models were wired to always produce hockey sticks, even when random temperature data is inserted. This is worst since it is outright fraud.

You can read the email and see the arguments. A quick summary:

• The data shows that the 1930s were as warm or warmer than now, with a similar rise up
• These mini hockey stocks suppress the '30s and elevate the '90s to produce the effect 
• The data shows no drastic warming anywhere in the world except maybe central Europe, and that is likely due to heavy urbanization
• The data for the Nordic countries shows that none of them have anything like the warming shown in the little chart above for Europe
• The climate cabal claims they excluded heavily urbanized areas, yet their data shows more than 500 central cities included. It is well known that the urban heat effect has skewed the readings up. They are lying about what is in the data. 

A cursory reading of the email snippets can lead one to dismiss this as over-reaction to some bad behavior. The reconstructed email shows that conclusion is premature. Reading the emails in context, and combining that with fraud wired into the computer models, makes a clear case of fraud. Sure, some of the cabal could go to jail for destroying the data to keep it out of a FOI request. 

I think the worse crime is to fake the science. 

Healthcare: Hide The Incline!

Riffing on the ClimateGate Hide the Decline video, here is the chart of the day from Verum Serum: how the Demo's are trying to hide the incline in healthcare reform.

You will see how phasing in the costs, but counting the taxes right away, gave the Senate bill a ten-year cost below $1T. When you instead count the first ten years of the fully-phased-in "reform", the cost almost doubles to $1.8T.

Clever, and misleading.

ClimateGate Grows Warmer Down Under

 Could it get any worse for the GW cabal? Yes. 

First, it appears that the NZ version of CRU also made strong adjustments to raw data to show warming. Yes, all the warming in NZ is man-made .. by the climate adjustments! 

"The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming." 

Second, it appears Australian data was cherry-picked to show warming. 

Third, the Australian Parliment imploded when the opposition party deserted their leader who continued to support carbon restrictions in spite of the ClimateGate fraud. Cap&Trade may now be dead in Oz. 

ClimateGate Gets Worse: Climate Models Coded to Always Show Warming UPDATED

UPDATE 12/4: The computer models for climate have been wired to produce hockey sticks. If you ever wanted a smoking gun, this is it. This chart shows one built-in algorithm which adjusts the temperature data to produce hockey sticks. You can see how dramatic the adjustments are - they will show hockey sticks even if random temperature data is input. 

As investigators pour through the CRU data, they are finding ever more examples of fraud. The climate models themselves are coded to show warming: a bias to suppress the past and elevate the future is wired in. Previously investigators had shown that even random data plugged into the models showed hockey sticks. As I put it, garbage in, gospel out. Now they have reviewed the code itself and found the biased routines:

In 2 other programs, briffa_Sep98_d.pro and briffa_Sep98_e.pro, the “correction” is bolder by far. The programmer (Keith Briffa?) entitled the “adjustment” routine “Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!” And he/she wasn’t kidding. Now, IDL is not a native language of mine, but its syntax is similar enough to others I’m familiar with, so please bear with me while I get a tad techie on you.

Here’s the “fudge factor” (notice the brash SOB actually called it that in his REM statement):

yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]

valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75         ; fudge factor

These 2 lines of code establish a 20 element array (yrloc) comprised of the year 1400 (base year but not sure why needed here) and 19 years between 1904 and 1994 in half-decade increments.  Then the corresponding “fudge factor” (from the valadj matrix) is applied to each interval.  As you can see, not only are temperatures biased to the upside later in the century (though certainly prior to 1960) but a few mid-century intervals are being biased slightly lower.  That, coupled with the post-1930 restatement we encountered earlier, would imply that in addition to an embarrassing false decline experienced with their MXD after 1960 (or earlier), CRU’s “divergence problem” also includes a minor false incline after 1930.

There are more code examples of built-in warming. The comments in the code reveal the fraud, with statements like "stop in 1940 to avoid the decline." 

Hide The Decline

The ClimateGate guys are now being laughed at. Love the 'teaching moment' by the polar bear. 

 

Fear and Loathing in Global Warming

There is an old adage: You can never trust the Left.

It has just been proven true again with Global Warming. Think of all the righteous indignation at skeptics, the mocking and demonization of critics, the strident alarmism, the need for urgent measures, the maudlin fawning over polar bears, and all that. Yet the science is unproven and the world appears to be cooling off, or at least pausing in warming.

What if a small cabal at the center of the data has been perpetrating a huge fraud on the rest of us?

Yesterday the British climate data at the Hadley/CRU climate research unit was hacked and the stolen data posted in Russia then rapidly disseminated on the web. I first thought the story was a hoax, but apparently people at Hadley have confirmed the breach. Now the MSM is picking this up, including Andrew Revkin at the NYT. The WSJ sees blood in the water, and finds that the emails reveal rancor in the ranks of climate scientists, rather than the self-acclaimed consensus. CBS News found bad computer code not just bad emails; the code shows fraud was built into the models.

The authenticity of the data is not disputed. And they are devastating to the credibility of this cabal at the center of the GW case. 

The backstory here begins with some brave amateur sleuths led by Steve McIntyre who first debunked the Mann Hockey Stick, the linchpin of the GW argument. Then they debunked the attempt to resurrect the hockey stick. They showed the bad science behind the Steig Antarctic "Pac Man". A couple of whistle blowers were keeping watch on the whole enterprise, with governments, universities, scientists and Al Gore all arrayed against them. They kept asking for the data behind the GW analysis, and were refused and blocked from getting it. The CRU webpage even claimed it had lost the data! 

Now it turns out this was all a load of fraud, misdirection and lies.

The admissions in the emails are so bad these clowns should go to jail for fraud - Fraud of a Bernie Madoff scale. Fraud with a capital F. A whole bunch of the damning emails are excerpted in this article. More are attached or excerpted in the comments to this post of Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit site. The most damning implicate Phil Jones, director of CRU. A case can be built for various frauds by the whole lot of them. Here are some disturbing excerpts:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.

As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations. [This is from Michael Mann of the Hockey Stick]

The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! ...  The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate!  Cheers Phil

PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act ! 

If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them. [From the same Phil as above, the director of CRU]

If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.

Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean ... It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip

I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.

Enough! There is a lot more in this vein. You can explore for itself at this searchable database. A portal to the continuing commentary is here. For readers with ADD, a good compendium of the damning excerpts is here, and a good discussion of what it means is here. Among other juicy snippets, it has Mann confirming that he wanted to kill off the Medieval Warm Period (when temperatures were warmer than today without man-made CO2), a clear indication of fraudulent manipulation of data, not science.

While email can be a poor medium for conveying nuance, and in their presumed private back and forth these guys may have been too flippant in the choice of words, there is clear evidence of an intent to deceive and destroy data to hide their manipulations if it.  This analysis by a blog site mocked in the emails show several examples of what may be considered criminal fraud.

For the most entertaining rant on this fraud, read Karl Denninger's reaction: "it is time to pull the curtain down on this crap and start locking up all of the proponents - starting with AL GORE." He includes even more smoking gun emails. Here is one more that specifically points out fraudulent use of data in the vaunted IPCC reports:

47 out of 91 models listed in Chapter 9 assume that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at the rate of 1% a year when the measured rate of increase, for the past 33 years, has been 0.4% a year. The assumption of false figures in models in order to boost future projections is  fraudulent. What other figures are falsely exaggerated in the same way?

GW always had the potential to be the eco-Vietnam, the quagmire that drags down the whole environmental movement. We have just had its Watergate.

Maybe it is time for the GW Plumbers to go to jail, or at least be fired and kept away from the core climate data: Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, James Hansen, Keith Briffa, Malcolm Hughes and Kevin Trenberth. They were the ones circulating the emails, they were the co-conspirators of the fraud, and they deserve to be treated as the self-righteous con men they have been shown to be.

If Al Gore were President, he would have to resign. As it is, he should give back his Nobel, his Oscar and his Emmy.

Why 2012 Won't Be Anything Like "2012"

This is really priceless, a complete debunking of all the idiocy over 2012. And done in a superb graphical way! Be sure to pass it on. I found it via The Big Picture, graphic courtesy Information is Beautiful.