Global Warming ‘Scientists’ Admit Purging Their Raw Data

This is what a massive scientific hoax looks like.

November 29, 2009
Climate change data dumped
Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.

Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years.

He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.

“Trust us.”  That’s what it all boils down to.

Silly me, but I thought “science” was supposed to amount to something more than that.

Here’s your bottom line: global warming, climate change, or whatever you want to call it, is a load of nonsense.  And the only anthropogenic or “man-made” problem is the giant sack of lies that an elitist group of pseudo-scientific ideologues  sold us.

One of the emails simply demonstrates what patently bad “science” global warming has been in the first place.  At its core, science is an endeavor which predicts a certain measurable outcome, and then attempts to determine whether that prediction is verified in nature according to a fair, open, and repeatable process.  Global warming isn’t even close to being science by the very standards of science:

At the end of 2008, the scientists at East Anglia predicted that 2009 would be one of the warmest years on record:

On December 30, climate scientists from the UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia projected 2009 will be one of the top five warmest years on record. Average global temperatures for 2009 are predicted to be 0.4∞C above the 1961-1990 average of 14 ∫ C. A multiyear forecast using a Met Office climate model indicates a rapid return of global temperature to the long-term warming trend, with an increasing probability of record temperatures after 2009.

We know now that the alarmists’ prediction for 2009 didn’t come true.

But bad science wasn’t all these global warming alarmists were guilty of.  They were also guilty of making skeptics of their bogus man-caused global warming alarmism modern versions of Galileo (I’ve previously written about this chilling development in postmodernized academia to punish politically “incorrect” academics and scientists).  They used the peer-review process as an ideological club to attack and undermine fellow scientists rather than using it as a means to get at the truth:

Dating back to 1996, the emails show that both U.S. and U.K. based scientists referred to any research offering alternate viewpoints as “disinformation”,“misinformation” or “crap” that needs to be kept out of the public domain.

The emails include deliberations amongst the scientists regarding efforts to make sure that reports from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change include their own research and exclude that of dissenting scientists.

In one of the emails, Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University We “will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

This is a startling quote, given that Jones and Mann as climate scientists have the authority to review papers and determine whether they are eligible to be published by scientific journals.

Mann even discussed how to destroy a journal that had published papers with contrary views, telling his colleagues that he believed it had been “hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board” who had “staged a coup”.

“Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.” Mann wrote.

One article, entitled, how “The Alarmists Do “Science:” A Case Study,” describes just “one of many exchanges that shed light on the priority that the global warming alarmists give to politics and career advancement over science.”  The author provides a fairly lengthy segment of an email conversation that is frankly chilling.

Another article compiles emails under the title, “When In Doubt, Delete,” that documents a pattern of deceptive behavior by people who called themselves “scientists” and yet were more interested in destroying evidence than producing and preserving it.

There are so many emails to go over no single article can do so, but here’s a few tidbits:

From a Powerline article entitled, “Global Warming Bombshell“:

They also suggest that pro-global warming scientists fudge data to get the results they are looking for. Just over a month ago, on September 28, 2009, Tom Wigley wrote to Phil Jones of the Hadley Centre about his efforts to get the right-sized “blip” in temperatures of the 1940s:

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 — but we’d still have to explain the land blip.

I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this.

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.

This and many other emails convey the impression that these theorists are making the “science” up as they go along, with data being manipulated until it yields the results that have been predetermined by political conviction.

One email from Phil Jones is particularly damning about “scientists” making up their own version of “science” in order to sell an ideology:

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 [sic] from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

A RealClearPolitics article entitled, “ClimateGate: The Fix Is In” explains what the “trick” is:

Anthony Watts provides an explanation of this case in technical detail; the “trick” consists of selectively mixing two different kinds of data-temperature “proxies” from tree rings and actual thermometer measurements-in a way designed to produce a graph of global temperatures that ends the way the global warming establishment wants it to: with an upward “hockey stick” slope.

A “trick” to “hide the decline.”  And these demagogues call US “deniers.”

As loathsome of a collection of frauds as our global warming “scientists” have proven to be, they don’t hold a candle to the mainstream media propagandists who made this colossal hoax possible in the first place – and who are still trying to conceal the fraud even now.

Barack Obama is going to go to Copenhagen to sign some pathologically insane economy-destroying accord because he is a true believer in the religion of liberalism.

And that is what global warming has now been proven to be: a religion.  It is an ideology advanced by religious fanatics.  This latest admission proves they have no raw data; they have no “science”; all they have is a rabid faith commitment that their own self-created narratives must be true because they believe it is true.

About these ads

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

11 Responses to “Global Warming ‘Scientists’ Admit Purging Their Raw Data”

  1. J.W. Wartick Says:

    Amen. Sometimes I think it’s just as Michael Crichton outlined in “State of Fear,” in which he argued (through his fictional work) that it is just another in a series of ways for the gov’t to keep people in check.

    Excellent series of links and articles, as always.

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    The dishonesty of these people who have been given positions of power and influence is simply shocking.

    You can well understand how we are ripe from the last days dictatorship of the Beast of Revelation.

  3. sissie43 Says:

    Hopefully this will wake people up and stop the proposed carbon legislation around the world.

    Those proposals would have robbed the people in the developed nations of their money, and those in less developed nations of their lives….for a lie.

    Hurray for hackers and whistle blowers!

  4. Michael Eden Says:

    You can never stop this kind of stuff for long. We have to keep fighting and fighting.

    Michael Mann should have been thrown out of academia and the scientific community years ago after perpetuating his “hockey stick” fraud. But instead he’s still around to be part of the revelation of yet another massive scientific fraud. Climategate shows that many of these scientists are far more fascist than scientist.

    Al Gore just got caught red-handed in a giant scientific lie. He’s been a lying propagandist for years. But that didn’t stop him from collecting a Nobel Prize for science.

    The truth doesn’t matter to the left, which is why liars and frauds remain to perpetuate more lies and more fraud. All that matters to them is raw political power. And nothing but nothing would perpetuate leftist power than imposing massive socialist redistributionism in the name of “saving the earth.”

  5. Luis Says:

    Don, this has been all over the news in Europe but most of the news channels in US wont report this. This guy is the leadin UN climatealigist and Al Gores main man with stats, remember the hockey stick that was suppose to happen in 10 years? Well its ten years and nada, its so funny.

    Luis

  6. graham.lea@shell.com Says:

    It’s just like any other religion. Those in charge, the Pope’s or Archbishop’s of climate science, could never admit that there was no god or they would all be out of a job. So just like every other cult or religious leader, they keep the truth bottled up and use fear to control the weak minded proletariat.

  7. Graham Says:

    If you guys want to do some experiments of your own, but 100 thermometers and temperature thermocouples, put them all togehter in one temperature controlled room. The write down the readings from each thermometer, and note down the differences in the readings. 0.7 oC? You’ll find a lot bigger differences than that. Can’t beleive we are using data from 150 years ago to predict climate change! What a load of shite.

  8. Michael Eden Says:

    So just like every other cult or religious leader, they keep the truth bottled up and use fear to control the weak minded proletariat

    Good analogy, Graham.lea,

    I’ll add to it.

    Archeologists have discovered mechanical gizmos that they’ve figured out were pulleys and other equipment for the temple priests to fool the “seekers” into thinking their gods were real.

    Anyone who wants to see the global warming equivalent just needs to google things like “climategate,” “emails,” “hide the decline,” “mike’s nature trick,” “raw data” and “purged.”

  9. Michael Eden Says:

    Graham,

    Good one.

    It would help even more if you put some of your thermometers near air conditioning equipment, asphalt roads, and other sources that are guaranteed to generate considerably hotter readings. Oh, and ignore the thermometers that aren’t giving you the data you want.

  10. Mechanical Engineer Says:

    The data that was thrown out was not the only data that was collected around the world.
    Take some time and rather than read some idiot’s opinion, do your own research. If you have any intelligence, there is only one conclusion – the atmospher is geating warmer. WAKE UP AMERICA. Scientist are scientist, not lying politicians and not ignorant columnist.
    Corporations do not care about you or the environment, so the last thing they would want is for the people to have knowledge.
    “The ten warmest years on record have all occured since 1995″

    For starters, you can visit NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmopsheric Administration). I’m trying to teach you to fish!! let’s see if you starve America ?!!!

  11. Michael Eden Says:

    Mechanical Mind,

    You might be great at teaching people to fish. If so, please stick with it. You’re sure not good at teaching people to think. All you can do is recite the pseudo-scientific propaganda that someone poured into your head.

    Your “science” is ideology, and whenever the science gets in the way of your ideology, so much the worse for your “science.”

    We went from “global warming” to “climate change” because we clearly WEREN’T warming, and “climate change” provided the left with the rhetorical defice to entirely deny their previous arguments and to actually argue that it’s so damn cold because it’s so damn hot. And it was “justified” “scientifically” by “researchers” who were saying to one another stuff like:

    “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.”

    Then you find out that the “trick” of “hiding the decline” was even more insidious than merely camouflaging the fact that it’s not getting warmer, but rather the very heart of their case in terms of proxy reconstructions of data.

    So much for your “Scientist are scientist [sic], not lying politicians and not ignorant columnist [sic]” remark.

    And with all due respect for your “science” and your sneering contempt to conceal the fact that you have been disproven time and time again, it is all complete BULLCRAP:

    In 2000, global warmers shrilly assured us that “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”

    The problem with that “scientific” prediction based on the “fact” of global warming is that it turned out to be completely FALSE:

    Ski resorts’ woe: Too much snow
    Fierce storms that closed roads on key weekends prevented many potential visitors from driving to the slopes this season
    May 21, 2011 | Hugo Martin

    California ski operators often complain that they don’t have enough snow. This year, they’re complaining that they had too much.

    Mountain resorts saw a 12% decline in skiers and snowboarders this season compared with the previous one, with attendance falling to about 7.1 million, according to the California Ski Industry Assn., the nonprofit trade group for the state’s major winter sports areas.

    Your mantra that “corporations do not care about you or the environment” reveals your real problem: you are a socialist. You might be some hybrid consisting in part fascist, part Marxist, and pure distilled fool.

    Socialists do not care about you, the environment, or anything but their total power and control over the masses. And they use naked indoctrination to GET that control.

    As for the mainstream media that have bought global warming hook, line and sinker – because pseudo-scientists like YOU taught them how to “fish” – I pointed out in a comment just yesterday:

    A Soviet correspondent said of the American mainstream media, “I have the greatest admiration for your propaganda. Propaganda in the West is carried out by experts who have had the best training in the world — in the field of advertizing — and have mastered the techniques with exceptional proficiency … Yours are subtle and persuasive; ours are crude and obvious … I think that the fundamental difference between our worlds, with respect to propaganda, is quite simple. You tend to believe yours … and we tend to disbelieve ours.”

    And it is a rather easy thing to document that those “experts” are entirely leftwing:

    Walter Lippmann – who shaped progressive “journalism,” said, “The common interests very largely elude public opinion entirely and can be managed only by a specialized class whose personal interests reach beyond the locality.” He referred to democracy as “the manufacture of consent” and said citizens “are mentally children.” He said:

    “In the absence of institutions and education by which the environment is so successfully reported that the realities of public life stand out very sharply against self-centered opinion, the common interests very largely elude public opinion entirely, and can be managed only by a specialized class…”

    Meanwhile his progressive pal Edward Bernays said things like:

    “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”

    It is the LEFT that wants to erect an elite class that rules the lives of the rest of the people. By whatever means necessary, including propaganda and lies. It is the LEFT that wants to erect a giant omnipotent state that replaces God. It is the LEFT that wants to create a world in which everyone has to come to THEM to get the basic essentials for existence and thus control those existences.

    It is the left that is telling all the lies.

    For the record, mechanically clueless, you just parroted one of those lies that were passed from global warming alarmist “scientists” to their parrots in the mainstream media which has since been entirely refuted. It is a LIE that “the ten warmest years on record have all occured [sic] since 1995.” And thank God for the “idiots” – as you would have called them – who forced the correction after “science” bowed down before leftist ideology.

    1934 is now the hottest, and 3 others from the 1930′s are in the top 10. Furthermore, only 3 (not 9) took place since 1995 (1998, 1999, and 2006). The years 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004 are now below the year 1900 and no longer even in the top 20.

    Sorry, Mr. Sneering Ignorant Liberal, but your “facts” just got flushed down the toilet with the rest of the fecal matter

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 493 other followers

%d bloggers like this: