I’ve watched part 4, which had an early release. The video is cheering, and supported with a multitude of graphics and interviews. “Chiefio” aka E.M. Smith and Joe D’Aleo make strong appearances.
Here is the KUSI introduction:
A computer programmer named E. Michael Smith and a Certified Consulting Meteorologist named Joseph D’Aleo join the program to tell us about their breakthrough investigation into the manipulations of data at the NASA Goddard Science and Space Institute at Columbia University in New York and the NOAA National Climate Data Center in Ashville, North Carolina.
E. Michael Smith kept a blog of his findings. See his site by clicking here.
Joe D’Aleo has written a detailed report on the findings. It is available here .
I have written a blog about this important climate news development. It is available by clicking here.
D’Aleo wrote an outstanding article on Climategate. It is available here.
You can read about the English Climategate leaked or hacked files at the Anglia University Climate Center at this newspaper site.
And, there is a US connection with the original Climategate, as well. Professor Michael Mann, of Penn State University, is in the middle of it. Here is the latest on it.
All five parts of the video are now online.
Click below to watch each segment of the KUSI Special Report, Global Warming: The Other Side
Sponsored IT training links:
Interested in CISA certification? Try out our latest 650-575 dumps and 642-262 practice test with 100% success guarantee.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It won’t be reported by the BBC. Guaranteed.
Wooo Hooo more Heather Moore.
The evil fools don’t care about science or about debating. They have an end goal and they don’t care how they get there. Your life, my life or millions of other lives, they will spin their lies regardless of the outcome. The laugh will be on them at the end. As Margaret Thatcher said, “Eventually, they will run out of other people’s money.”
Actually, Mr. Coleman is very restrained on his treatment of the US Government types involved here – he left out James ‘I see Venus Everywhere’ Hansen and Gavin ‘the Hitman’ Schmidt’s roles in all this. While Gore, Strong, and Mann certainly deserve disdain, they are far from being the only ones. . .then again, he did only have an hour of air time.
It seems to me to be, although a tad American for my taste, as you might expect, a pretty thorough and workmanlike job.
But I understand it is only a tiny station so how much coverage it will eventually get I have no idea.
Could you imagine the BBC or even the major US networks running an hour on this?
Or indeed on such lines?
However it’s another link in the chain and credit where credit is due.
Kindest Regards
With the possible (but not probable) exception of FOX, this program won’t be aired on any other TV station. Thanks for making it available here.
They dropped out 75% of the stations and did not recalculate the whole range based on the lower number of stations?
They dropped out many of the stations with cooler temps?
Unbelievable.
And some wonder why they didn’t want to release the data.
Thanks for posting this. Saw the faces of a few big figures for the first time. The limited coverage of the CRU fiasco was a bit of a pity.
Solve climate change by picking up the mess your dog makes on the lawn.
ROFLMAO!!!
Watched it all and thoroughly enjoyed it!! Proud to be able to say I post on the same blog as E.M. Smith. Very solid. It is exciting to watch this all unfold!!
Nice and folksy. Hard-hitting statements. It seems that the work on NOAA and NCDC data needs to be given more analysis, and if the contentions hold up, more exposure.
E.M. Smith was easy to understand.
Computer programmers have to be like that. They’re used to being like that because they work full time with a dumb machine that has to have everything spelled out in simple terms.
————————————————
The show was a good introduction to the other side of global warming.
It’s still amazing to me that anyone would believe that people can change weather. How did we get to this idiotic, illogical point? Imagine how bad it would be if the man-made warming wasn’t masking the cold.
Oh my. I just watched the first segment. It looked like a Jack Van Impe program. I am embarrassed.
The show had a nice mix of serious and light material. Near the end, The “Hide the Decline” song and animation made a nice counter weight to the serious charges concerning temperature data tampering by NOAA and NASA. The explanation of the tampering was nicely presented, and easy to follow.
Thank you, Mr. Coleman. If you (and the others who are exposing this scam) ever get a Nobel Prize for your tireless work (we’re all allowed to dream a little, aren’t we?), I hope you refuse to accept it unless Al Gore and the IPCC return theirs.
I watched the first section and it’s very poor. Misleading in fact.
The presenter references Al Gore’s movie and the IPCC and then goes on to debunk Al Gore’s movie (re CO2 lagging past temperature changes).
What about the IPCC?
Given that the presenter obviously never checked the IPCC reports himself he should have said that.
IPCC – Third Assessment Report (2001), chapter 3, page 203:
“..Whatever the mechanisms involved, lags of up to 2,000 to 4,000 years in the drawdown of CO2 at the start of glacial periods suggests that the low CO2 concentrations during glacial periods amplify the climate change but do not initiate glaciations (Lorius and Oeschger, 1994; Fischer et al., 1999). Once established, the low CO2 concentration is likely to have enhanced global cooling (Hewitt and Mitchell, 1997)…”
[A short extract only to demonstrate the point.]
In fact the whole 3rd chapter is concerned with the complexities of the CO2 cycle. (I’d never read that chapter of the IPCC report but it only took me about 15 minutes to find the relevant chapter and the above citation).
The IPCC agrees with the presenter that CO2 lags temperature changes!
How can this be? Don’t the IPCC realize this destroys their whole hypothesis?? (It doesn’t)
He also brings up, gasp, CO2 is a trace gas. As if to say “I rest my case”. The fact that it’s a “trace gas” is not in contention.
So, my point is, the presenter is either ignorant, or is relying on the ignorance of his audience. Like Al Gore with his movie.
Maybe the rest of it is good, I don’t know I only watched the first video segment, in which he also interviews a few well-known and knowledgeable scientists. They probably know that CO2 lagging temperature in the ice core records doesn’t destroy the hypothesis that CO2 might affect temperatures as well. And they probably don’t believe that CO2 can’t affect the temperature “because it’s a trace gas”.
I’m a skeptic and I don’t believe the certainty of the future temperature rises and the consequent four horsemen of the apocalypse that the IPCC has projected.
But it’s a sad day for skepticism when someone produces this kind of material.
P.S. Blog plug – for explanation of why “it’s a trace gas” is irrelevant see http://scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-one
REPLY: Part 4 is the best – Anthony
I just watched the entire series and found it to be delightful. Good facts presented in a way that the general public can grasp the key issues, salted with a touch of good humor.
Well done and thumbs up to our resident forensic computer wizard E. M. Smith for his presentation and getting the word out that there is a systematic process to cook the books.
Set the flamingos free !
Larry
Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes.
Jim Hansen
The 4th part is certainly worth a watch.
scienceofdoom (22:33:47) :
Although you are correct in what you say, we must remember the targeted audience. These are NOT well versed climate tradgics (like us), they are people who most likely got their AGW info from Al Gores movie/dvd. So it makes sense to highlight Al Gores “stuff”. Plus the IPCC report you refer to was launched in 2001, Al Gores movie was produced 2004/5 so he should have known CO2 lagged temps but misrepresented by clever use of words.
This was a TV programme. It has to be made palatable (interesting) for people lest they switch off. So I wouldn’t expect deep deep scientific analysis of the IPCC reports, but rather easier to understand bite sized segments debunking “commonly held” beliefs, most of which comes from Al Gores publicising of AGW. To that end it was an excellent job well done.
The key for me was the data manipulation revealed. Somebody may well run with this info now. Lets hope so.
That was a phenomenal report. Coleman called GISS and NASA outright liars. I enjoyed the Minnesotans for global warming stuff.
Hide The Decline – Climategate
Thanks for putting up the videos. Seems hockey sticks aren’t the only thing that’s been spliced to hide the decline.
This is not deep science with complex partial differential equations and many scientific details. It is not meant to be. It is aimed not at debunking the science so much as debunking the summary for policy makers.
I have no doubt that the science is shoddy. But the shoddiest part of this whole scam is the summary for policymakers. So pointing out where the scientific papers agree with Coleman’s presentation is not the point.
The point is that the science only weakly supports a Strong policy. And that may in itself be the reason for the enHansen of the data. Or as I have also said the in another comment the Jonesing of the data.
Mr. Coleman reminded me of somebody I once watched every night.
The voice, the manner.
All he needed to do was put on some thick black-rimmed glasses, and he could do Walter Cronkite on SNL.
Very nice presentation, a must for You Tube.