Shock News : “U.S. Agencies Accused of Fudging Data to Show Global Warming”
Posted: January 30, 2014 Filed under: Climate Fraud, Climatism, Data Tampering, Empirical Evidence, Environmentalism, Fact Check, Government Grants/Funding, Govt Climate Agenda, Green Agenda, NASA, NOAA, Pseudo-Science | Tags: climate fraud, Data Tampering, Gavin Schmidtt, Global Warming, James Hansen, nasa, NOAA, Scientific Fraud, Steven Goddard Leave a comment“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“It doesn’t matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true.”
– Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace
“As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.”
– Michael E. Mann | Climategate Emails
U.S. Agencies Accused of Fudging Data to Show Global Warming
Re-blogged via Real Science – Shock News : “U.S. Agencies Accused of Fudging Data to Show Global Warming” | Real Science
•••
UPDATE
via Real Science :
No Warming – Just Natural Cycles Masked By NOAA/NASA Data Tampering
By tampering with the data, NOAA and NASA destroy the ability of scientists to see what is actually going on with the climate.
•••
Another View Of NASA Temperature Data Tampering | CACA
•••
UPDATE
via WattsUpWithThat :
Important study on temperature adjustments: ‘homogenization…can lead to a significant overestimate of rising trends of surface air temperature.’
From the “we told you so” department comes this paper out of China that quantifies many of the very problems with the US and global surface temperature record we have been discussing for years: the adjustments add more warming than the global warming signal itself
A paper just published in Theoretical and Applied Climatology finds that the data homogenization techniques commonly used to adjust temperature records for moving stations and the urban heat island effect [UHI] can result in a “significant” exaggeration of warming trends in the homogenized record.
The effect of homogenization is clear and quite pronounced. What they found in China is based on how NOAA treats homogenization of the surface temperature record.
According to the authors:
“Our analysis shows that “data homogenization for [temperature] stations moved from downtowns to suburbs can lead to a significant overestimate of rising trends of surface air temperature.”
•••
NASA / NOAA Data Tampering Related :
- Breaking: New Climate Data Rigging Scandal Rocks US Government | Principia Scientific Int.
- Just Hit The NOAA Motherlode | Real Science
- A Good Visualization Of The Increase In Corruption At NASA Since 1999 | CACA
- GISS Data Tampering – Worse Than You Thought | Real Science
- GISS/NOAA/CRU Climate Fraud Update | Real Science
- Smoking Gun That The Temperature Record Is Fraudulent | Real Science
- Man Made Global Warming Is A Complete Fraud | Real Science
- NASA Massively Tampering With The US Temperature Record | Real Science
- NASA’s Quest To Erase The Warm 1930′s | CACA
- Spectacularly Poor Climate Science At NASA
- Data Tampering At USHCN/GISS
- Thermometer Magic
- EPA Throws Their Hat Into The Temperature Fraud Arena
- Shock News : UN IPCC Rewrote Temperature History To Suit Their Political Agenda | CACA
- The Very High Price Of NOAA/NASA Data Tampering | Real Science
Related :
- Shock News : “Heat Island Effect” Warms Temperature Data | CACA
- 97% of climate models say that 97% of climate scientists are wrong | CACA
- NATURE STUDY Confirms Global Warming Stopped 15 Years Ago | CACA
- The Great Global Warming Climate Shift | CACA
- The Missing Hot Spot | CACA
- Global Warming Was Never About Science. It Was Always About Power And Money | CACA
- Driessen : A Climate of Fear, Cash and Correctitude | CACA
- “In Searching For A New Enemy To Unite Us, We Came Up With The Threat Of Global Warming” | CACA
The Obamacar
Posted: January 30, 2014 Filed under: Carbon Dioxide, Environmentalism, Government Grants/Funding, Govt Climate Agenda, Green Agenda, Green Energy, Obama, Politics | Tags: Climate Change, Energy, Obama, SOTU Leave a commentHere is one of Obama’s natural gas powered Honda Civics
CNG has to be kept at more than 200 atmospheres pressure. You can think of it as a large conventional explosive located six inches underneath your children.
One of the reasons why is natural gas. If extracted safely, it’s the bridge fuel that can power our economy with less of the carbon pollution that causes climate change. (Applause.) Businesses plan to invest almost a hundred billion dollars in new factories that use natural gas.
I’ll cut red tape to help states get those factories built and put folks to work, and this Congress can help by putting people to work building fueling stations that shift more cars and trucks from foreign oil to American natural gas.
America is the largest producer of oil in the world.
Climate experts have been telling us for years that methane (natural gas) is a…
View original post 21 more words
Fear, Complexity and Environmental Management in the 21st Century (Michael Crichton)
Posted: January 29, 2014 Filed under: AGW, Alarmism Debunked, Alarmist Predictions, Carbon Dioxide, Climate, Climate Change, Climate models, Climate science, Climatism, Dud predictions, Empirical Evidence, Environmentalism, Environmentalists, Failed Climate Models, Global Temperature, Global Warming, Global Warming Stasis, Government Grants/Funding, Govt Climate Agenda, Green Agenda, Pseudo-Science | Tags: climate, Climate Change, Michael Crichton, science 1 Comment“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
― Michael Crichton
“I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”
― Michael Crichton
“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”
― Michael Crichton
Our governments can act with a foolishness of simple thinking, when tasked with the complex and unpredictable nature of climate. In one of his epic lectures, Fear, Complexity, & Environmental Management in the 21st Century, the late Michael Crichton, details the enormous fear created by people and governments with misinformed agendas, and the disastrous consequence of using “linear thinking” to solve complex problems.
In a system as chaotic, complex and intricate as our Climate, we cannot reduce complex problems down to simple solutions. Sadly, this is not very apparent to our Government masters, especially those in the West who like to solve complex problems with simple policy solutions, such that they are readily accepted by us.
We need to be flexible in our responses, as we move into a new era of managing complexity. So we have to stop responding to fear.
But beyond any given crisis, I want to emphasize the pattern: new fears rise and fall, to be replaced by others that rise and fall.
A Mark Twain quote sums up:
“I’ve seen a heap of trouble in my life, and most of it never came to pass.”
•••
(Note: Whoever has inherited control of the Crichton Estate, has “gotten rid” of both of his excellent lectures on Environmentalism and global warming climate change. One is featured in this post. The other here.)
•••
Fear, Complexity, & Environmental Management in the 21st Century
Washington Center for Complexity and Public Policy
Washington DC
November 6, 2005
By
Michael Crichton
I am going to challenge you today to revise your thinking, and to reconsider some fundamental assumptions. Assumptions so deeply embedded in our consciousness that we don’t even realize they are there. Here is a map by the artist Tom Friedman, that challenges certain assumptions.
Seen close up.
But the assumptions I am talking about today represent another kind of map—a map that tells us the way the world works. Since this is a lecture on complexity, you will not be surprised to hear that one important assumption most people make is the assumption of linearity, in a world that is largely non-linear. I hope by the end of this lecture that the meaning of that statement will be clear. But we won’t be getting there in a linear fashion.
Some of you know I have written a book that many people find controversial. It is called State of Fear, and I want to tell you how I came to write it. Because up until five years ago, I had very conventional ideas about the environment and the success of the environmental movement.
The book really began in 1998, when I set out to write a novel about a global disaster. In the course of my preparation, I rather casually reviewed what had happened in Chernobyl, since that was the worst manmade disaster in recent times that I knew about.
What I discovered stunned me. Chernobyl was a tragic event, but nothing remotely close to the global catastrophe I imagined. About 50 people had died in Chernobyl, roughly the number of Americans that die every day in traffic accidents. I don’t mean to be gruesome, but it was a setback for me. You can’t write a novel about a global disaster in which only 50 people die.
Undaunted, I began to research other kinds of disasters that might fulfill my novelistic requirements. That’s when I began to realize how big our planet really is, and how resilient its systems seem to be. Even though I wanted to create a fictional catastrophe of global proportions, I found it hard to come up with a credible example. In the end, I set the book aside, and wrote Prey instead.
But the shock that I had experienced reverberated within me for a while. Because what I had been led to believe about Chernobyl was not merely wrong—it was astonishingly wrong. Let’s review the data.
The initial reports in 1986 claimed 2,000 dead, and an unknown number of future deaths and deformities occurring in a wide swath extending from Sweden to the Black Sea. As the years passed, the size of the disaster increased; by 2000, the BBC and New York Times estimated 15,000-30,000 dead, and so on…
Now, to report that 15,000-30,000 people have died, when the actual number is 56, represents a big error. Let’s try to get some idea of how big. Suppose we line up all the victims in a row. If 56 people are each represented by one foot of space, then 56 feet is roughly the distance from me to the fourth row of the auditorium. Fifteen thousand people is three miles away. It seems difficult to make a mistake of that scale.
But, of course, you think, we’re talking about radiation: what about long-term consequences? Unfortunately here the media reports are even less accurate.
The chart shows estimates as high as 3.5 million, or 500,000 deaths, when the actual number of delayed deaths is less than 4,000. That’s the number of Americans who die of adverse drug reactions every six weeks. Again, a huge error.
But most troubling of all, according to the UN report in 2005, is that “the largest public health problem created by the accident” is the “damaging psychological impact [due] to a lack of accurate information…[manifesting] as negative self-assessments of health, belief in a shortened life expectancy, lack of initiative, and dependency on assistance from the state.”
In other words, the greatest damage to the people of Chernobyl was caused by bad information. These people weren’t blighted by radiation so much as by terrifying but false information. We ought to ponder, for a minute, exactly what that implies. We demand strict controls on radiation because it is such a health hazard. But Chernobyl suggests that false information can be a health hazard as damaging as radiation. I am not saying radiation is not a threat. I am not saying Chernobyl was not a genuinely serious event.
But thousands of Ukrainians who didn’t die were made invalids out of fear. They were told to be afraid. They were told they were going to die when they weren’t. They were told their children would be deformed when they weren’t. They were told they couldn’t have children when they could. They were authoritatively promised a future of cancer, deformities, pain and decay. It’s no wonder they responded as they did.
In fact, we need to recognize that this kind of human response is well-documented. Authoritatively telling people they are going to die can in itself be fatal.
You may know that Australian aborigines fear a curse called “pointing the bone.” A shaman shakes a bone at a person, and sings a song, and soon after, the person dies. This is a specific example of a phenomenon generally referred to as “hex death”—a person is cursed by an authority figure, and then dies. According to medical studies, the person generally dies of dehydration, implying they just give up. But the progression is very erratic, and shock symptoms may play a part, suggesting adrenal effects of fright and hopelessness.
Yet this deadly curse is nothing but information. And it can be undone with information.
A friend of mine was an intern at Bellvue Hospital in New York. A 28-year old man from Aruba said he was going to die, because he had been cursed. He was admitted for psychiatric evaluation and found to be normal, but his health steadily declined. My friend was able to rehydrate him, balance his electrolytes, and give him nutrients, but nevertheless the man worsened, insisting that he was cursed and there was nothing that could prevent his death. My friend realized that the patient would, in fact, soon die. The situation was desperate. Finally he told the patient that he, the doctor, was going to invoke his own powerful medicine to undo the curse, and his medicine was more powerful than any other. He got together with the house staff, bought some headdresses and rattles, and danced around the patient in the middle of the night, chanting what they hoped would be effective-sounding phrases. The patient showed no reaction, but next day he began to improve. The man went home a few days later. My friend literally saved his life.
This suggests that the Ukranian invalids are not unique in their response, but by the large numbers of what we might call “information casualties” they represent a particularly egregious example of what can happen from false fears.
Once I looked at Chernobyl, I began to recall other fears in my life that had never come true. The population bomb, for one. Paul Ehrlich predicted mass starvation in the 1960s. Sixty million Americans starving to death. Didn’t happen. Other scientists warned of mass species extinctions by the year 2000. Ehrlich himself predicted that half of all species would become extinct by 2000. Didn’t happen. The Club of Rome told us we would run out of raw materials ranging from oil to copper by the 1990s. That didn’t happen, either.
It’s no surprise that predictions frequently don’t come true. But such big ones! And so many! All my life I worried about the decay of the environment, the tragic loss of species, the collapse of ecosystems. I feared poisoning by pesticides, alar on apples, falling sperm counts from endocrine disrupters, cancer from power lines, cancer from saccharine, cancer from cell phones, cancer from computer screens, cancer from food coloring, hair spray, electric razors, electric blankets, coffee, chlorinated water…it never seemed to end.
Only once, when on the same day I read that beer was a preservative of heart muscle and also a carcinogen did I begin to sense the bind I was in. But for the most part, I just went along with what I was being told.
Now, Chernobyl started me on a new path. As I researched these old fears, to find out what had been said in the past, I made several important discoveries. The first is that there is nothing more sobering than a 30 year old newspaper. You can’t figure out what the headlines mean. You don’t know who the people are. Theodore Green, John Sparkman, George Reedy, Jack Watson, Kenneth Duberstein. You thumb through page after page of vanished concerns—issues that apparently were vitally important at the time, and now don’t matter at all. It’s amazing how many pressing concerns are literally of the moment. They won’t matter in six months, and certainly not in six years. And if they won’t matter then, are they really worth our attention now?
But as David Brinkley once said, “The one function TV news performs very well is that when there is no news we give it to you with the same emphasis as if there were.”
Another thing I discovered was that attempts to provoke fear tended to employ a certain kind of stereotypic, intense language. For example, here is a climate quote:
Familiar language, isn’t it? But it’s not about global warming, it’s about global cooling. Fear of a new ice age. Anybody here worried about a new ice age? Anybody upset we didn’t act now, back then, to stockpile food and do all the other things we were warned we had to do?
Here is a quote from a famous 1970s computer study that predicted a dire future for mankind unless we act now:
Fear, Complexity, Environmental Management in the 21st Century – Michael Crichton
•••
See also :
- Shock news : UN Carbon Regime Would Devastate Humanity | CACA
- Bananas deadlier than Fukushima | CACA
- Aliens Cause Global Warming: A Caltech Lecture by Michael Crichton
- Welcome to MichaelCrichton.com
Climatism Hot Links :
- Sustainability is Malthusianism for the 21st Century | CACA
- “In Searching For A New Enemy To Unite Us, We Came Up With The Threat Of Global Warming” | CACA
- Europe’s Green Energy Basket Case Is Tim Flannery’s Dream | CACA
- Driessen : A Climate of Fear, Cash and Correctitude | CACA
- Global Warming Was Never About Science. It Was Always About Power And Money | CACA
- ‘Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life’ | CACA
- Europe’s Green Energy Basket Case Is Tim Flannery’s Dream | CACA
- The Truth About the Global Warming Agenda by Former NASA Climatologist | CACA
- The Great Global Warming Climate Shift | CACA
- Shock news : Australia has always had heatwaves | CACA
- Judith Curry : Senate EPW Hearing on the President’s Climate Action Plan | CACA
- Bureaucratic Dioxide
- Shock News : Australia’s Carbon Tax Has Killed Jobs And Destroyed Nation’s Competitiveness
- UN Climate Chief Says Communism Is Best To Fight Global Warming | CACA
- Shock news : UN Carbon Regime Would Devastate Humanity | CACA
- Bananas deadlier than Fukushima | CACA
- Shock News : UN Wants To Ban Private Property And Create “Human Habitat Settlement Zones” | CACA
- NATURE STUDY Confirms Global Warming Stopped 15 Years Ago | CACA
Quote Source – The Green Agenda
H/t to Tundra Swans
THE Missing Hot Spot
Posted: January 28, 2014 Filed under: Carbon Dioxide, Climate, Climate models, Climate science, Climatism, Dud predictions, Empirical Evidence, Fact Check, Failed Climate Models, Global Warming Stasis, Hot Spot, IPCC, Pseudo-Science, Satellite Data, Science | Tags: failed climate models, The Missing Hot Spot 3 Comments“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.“
– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
One of the most important pieces of the climate change debate … the missing ‘Hot-Spot’.
- DAVID EVANS
- THE AUSTRALIAN
- JULY 18, 2008 12:00AM
I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.
FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I’ve been following the global warming debate closely for years.
When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.
The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.
But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:
1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.
If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.
When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.
Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you’d believe anything.
2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.
3. The satellites that measure the world’s temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the “urban heat island” effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.
4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.
None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.
The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician’s assertion.
Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming.
So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.
In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn’t noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.
If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don’t you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?
The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.
What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.
The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.
Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.
No smoking hot spot | The Australian
•••
See also :
- The missing hotspot « JoNova (Great article for simple explanation)
- Sherwood 2008: Where you can find a hot spot at zero degrees « JoNova
•••
Climatism Links :
- State Of The Climate Report | Climatism
- NATURE STUDY Confirms Global Warming Stopped 15 Years Ago | Climatism
- Peer into the Heart of the IPCC, Find Greenpeace | Climatism
CACA Hot Links :
- Sustainability is Malthusianism for the 21st Century | Climatism
- “In Searching For A New Enemy To Unite Us, We Came Up With The Threat Of Global Warming” | Climatism
- Europe’s Green Energy Basket Case Is Tim Flannery’s Dream | Climatism
- Driessen : A Climate of Fear, Cash and Correctitude | Climatism
- Global Warming Was Never About Science. It Was Always About Power And Money | Climatism
- ‘Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life’ | Climatism
- Europe’s Green Energy Basket Case Is Tim Flannery’s Dream | Climatism
- The Truth About the Global Warming Agenda by Former NASA Climatologist | Climatism
- The Great Global Warming Climate Shift | Climatism
- Shock news : Australia has always had heatwaves | Climatism
- Judith Curry : Senate EPW Hearing on the President’s Climate Action Plan | Climatism
- Bureaucratic Dioxide
- Shock News : Australia’s Carbon Tax Has Killed Jobs And Destroyed Nation’s Competitiveness
- UN Climate Chief Says Communism Is Best To Fight Global Warming | Climatism
- Shock news : UN Carbon Regime Would Devastate Humanity | Climatism
- Bananas deadlier than Fukushima | Climatism
- Shock News : UN Wants To Ban Private Property And Create “Human Habitat Settlement Zones” | Climatism
Quote source – The Green Agenda
New study suggests global warming decreases storm activity and extreme weather
Posted: January 28, 2014 Filed under: Uncategorized Leave a commentA paper published January 21st in Quaternary Science Reviews reconstructs storm activity in Iceland over the past 1,200 years and finds storminess and extreme weather variability was far more common during the Little Ice Age in comparison to the Medieval Warm Period and the 20th century. The paper adds to many other peer-reviewed publications finding global warming decreases storm activity, the opposite of claims by climate alarmists.
View original post 750 more words
Understanding Peer Review
Posted: January 23, 2014 Filed under: Alarmism uncovered, Alarmist Godfathers, Alarmists, Climate Fraud, Climate science, Climategate, Data Tampering, Eco-Activists, Environmentalism, Environmentalists, Government Grants/Funding, Govt Climate Agenda, Green Agenda, Hockey Stick, Pal-Review, Propaganda, Pseudo-Science | Tags: Climategate, CRU, East Anglia University, Mann-Made Global Warming, Phil Jones, trenberth 1 CommentCLIMATEGATE Related :
- ‘Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life’ | CACA
- Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation – Telegraph
- MUST READ : Climate change emails between scientists reveal flaws in peer review | Fred Pearce
- The Climategate Chronicle: How the Science of Global Warming Was Compromised – SPIEGEL ONLINE
- IPCC Researchers Admit Global Warming Fraud – The New American
- Climategate 3.0: FOIA – The Man Who Saved The World – Telegraph Blogs
- The CRU Mails
- Tom Nelson: 50+ Michael Mann ClimateGate emails
- Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995 | Mail Online
- But I thought the ‘science was settled’ | Las Vegas Review-Journal
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: “Michael E. Mann” <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil
Recent Comments