John Coleman's hourlong news special "Global Warming – The Other Side" now online, all five parts here

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.

John Coleman interviews E.M. Smith in part 4

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

Share


Sponsored IT training links:

Interested in CISA certification? Try out our latest 650-575 dumps and 642-262 practice test with 100% success guarantee.


Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

It won’t be reported by the BBC. Guaranteed.

SidViscous

Wooo Hooo more Heather Moore.

April E. Coggins

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.

a jones

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

rabidfox

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.

Robert A

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.

tokyoboy

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.

AlexB

Solve climate change by picking up the mess your dog makes on the lawn.
ROFLMAO!!!

David Ball

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!!

Tor Hansson

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.

photon without a Higgs

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.

April E. Coggins

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.

gtrip

Oh my. I just watched the first segment. It looked like a Jack Van Impe program. I am embarrassed.

rb Wright

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.

Mapou

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

hotrod ( Larry L )

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

Randy Hilton

Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes.
Jim Hansen

?

The 4th part is certainly worth a watch.

Baa Humbug

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.

Michael

That was a phenomenal report. Coleman called GISS and NASA outright liars. I enjoyed the Minnesotans for global warming stuff.
Hide The Decline – Climategate

Mike McMillan

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.

rbateman

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.

JP Miller

Well done! I’ve been a John Coleman fan since his days in Chicago, more than 35 years ago. He didn’t mince words and took the right angle: the global warming science is biased. He knows how complex the data sets and manipulations are, but made it simple and easy-to-understand. And Chiefio (E.M. Smith) was awesome. We can only hope this program goes viral on the Internet.

J.Peden

Could you imagine the BBC or even the major US networks running an hour on this?
No, not anymore. Except that here in the U.S., Obama has seen fit to certify that only Fox is to be believed. [pbuh]

yonason

There are currently some REALLY wacked out and dangerous people in positions of power.
“WND Exclusive – Top Obama czar: Infiltrate all ‘conspiracy theorists’.”
And what would one of those “conspiracy theories” be?
That “The theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud.”
Instead of being in charge of our fate, they need to at least be on medication, and getting some serious therapy.

The most important important part of the presentation was his direct public accusation that Michael Mann has committed academic fraud. Overall the presentation was targeted to the layman with just enough science language to make the point. The obvious snearing was good too.
Good Job. Thanks to Anthony Watts for posting and Mr Coleman for presenting.

The big news is E. M. Smith’s “March of the Thermometers” hypothesis. I am confused though about temperature vs. temperature anomaly. Global averages are presented as anomalies, meaning variations above/below an arbitrary time period’s average. If this was done for the input data too, then only the difference in variability of cold vs. hot regions would be modified by the great dying out of thermometers, not the absolute temperatures. There are three non-satellite global averages, GISS, Hadley and NCDC so there are three software packages to ask this question for. Isn’t the whole point of anomalies that using them instead of absolute temperature removes the problem that Smith is making a case for?

Michael

“DOES ANYONE happen to know Al Gore’s telephone number? I need to get in touch with the former vice president in the worst kind of way.
You see, I’ve got a question for Big Al: Where is global warming hiding? If it is around, we could use a visit about now.
My feet are cold, my hands are cold, my everything is cold. This has been one bad old winter, and we still have two months to go.
This wasn’t supposed to happen. By now, we were supposed to be in the grips of global warming and the tulips should be blooming in January.
How do I know? Big Al told me so. Beware! Global warming is coming! Those were his exact words–well, almost.”
Where’s global warming when you truly need it?
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2010/012010/01152010/521020

yonason

scienceofdoom (22:33:47) : = “comic relief”
Thanks for the laughs, but you need to get some new material. That bunk is so last inquisition.

Patrick Davis

WOW! Yes, part 4 was the best and it’s good to put a face to the name E. M. Smith. I bet you had several jaw dropping moments working on the temerature record.
Give that man a VB (Or his own channel on TV).

Michael

At this point it seems like just a battle of news paper headlines. Who can lie the most about man-made global warming and get away with it? It’s like a game. The publishers know the jig is up. More and more rogue articles concerning the truth about man-made global warming are sprouting up everyday like dandelions. It’s just a matter of time before there are more news paper articles telling the truth and out number the ones telling lies.

bud dingler

i thought it was a poor quality reporting (or reading from the prompter) and could not finish watching it. came off a like a Faux News piece.

Peter of Sydney

AGW alarmist have already stated the science does not matter anymore; the debate is over. I say their time is up. Either they produce conclusive evidence that AGW is real or they should be charged with fraud.

Jimbo

OT
but just for fun.

Daily Telegraph: 10 Feb 2009

Scotland’s ski industry could disappear within decades because of global warming, according to the Met Office.

“Climate change doesn’t mean there won’t be snowfall. It just means it won’t happen as often or with as much of it.”
BBC: 15 January 2010
The CairnGorm Mountain ski centre in the Highlands will be closed for the day – because of too much snow.
“The CairnGorm Mountain has been enjoying a bumper winter.
It has had its best Christmas holiday season in 14 years, with more than 8,000 skiers…”
Met Office: 10 December 2009
…very likely that 2010 will be a warmer year globally than 2009.

Expect another crap summer and cold winter then. :o)

Russ Blake

I think the seriousness of the scientific facts and their manipulations were somewhat minimized by the musical parodies. Somehow, “Bare Naked Ladies” songs just do not seem to add to this issue. It is one of my favorite songs, however.
Overall I think it was a great summary of where the science stands, and like many others here, I hope it somehow gets out to the general public. I will be sending this link to all of my warmer friends and enemies.
Thanks WUWT!

vg

absolutely shocking
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81583352.html Obama will lose any credibility unless he changes course real quick…

DirkH

“photon without a Higgs (22:12:02) :
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 machines are not the problem. It’s the bosses.

Michael

Answer for those who ask for your credentials.
So I take it you have faith, not understanding. Asking why and how is for understanding. Asking who you are is for faith.
Proof of religion.

Caleb

Mapou (22:33:37) :
I can see what you’re saying, but Colman is not addressing scientists. He is addressing the general public. Therefore he puts things in simple terms, and starts out by attacking what the general public understands.
Do you think the general public understands the IPCC reports? I am quite certain the general public would be put to sleep by page two of those dreary reports. I know that when I forced myself to read them I was so bored that my eyeballs practically fell out, and I was only able to stay awake by being outraged.
Gore put things to the general public in simple terms. Colman is responding in simple terms.
Those of us who wish to dig deeper are free to do so. Thank God. Scientists, and people with great understanding of computer programming and modeling, can dig even deeper.
My own experience has been that under ever rock you turn over are a whole bunch of worms. However, when I first began expressing my skepticism four years ago, I was treated like I was crazy, or was saying the earth was flat. Nor was response at all friendly. I wasn’t kidded, and treated like a mere fool; I was treated like some sort of criminal.
Opinions are now changing, much to my relief. However people like John Colman deal with the general public on a daily basis, and I imagine they have a better understanding than I do of what the general public is ready to hear.
The real danger is that these brave men get silenced.

Caleb

Sorry Mapou; my comment was suppose to be addressed to “scienceofdoom (22:33:47)”

mkurbo

Wow ! – watched it all and think it was well done ! Also (as others say) 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 !!
Better than a good thriller !

Baa Humbug:
It would be simple and concise to let the audience know that the IPCC agrees with him. But he claims to debunk the IPCC’s position.
Why is it so confusing for his audience to say “We debunk Al Gore’s movie, and the IPCC agrees that Al Gore’s movie was junk. We don’t agree with the IPCC about future temperature changes as a result of CO2, but in this point we are in agreement.” ?
Why is deception or ignorance ok? He’s as bad as Al Gore.
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/01/15/co2-lags-temperature-in-the-ice-core-record-doesnt-that-prove-the-ipcc-wrong/

Steve Case

I simply do not understand the whole issue of reduced number of reporting stations. Certainly there ARE weather stations in Bolivia. Are the data from them not being used? Is this really so? I would like to see more details on this issue.

Neville

I think it was reasonable, certainly part 4 was the best.
One problem I think they got the centimetres etc mixed up a bit when talking about sea level rise, but most people probably wouldn’t notice.

vg

NASA has issued the following statement in response to the KUSI Special Report. This statement is from Dr. James Hansen, Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City:
“NASA has not been involved in any manipulation of climate data used in the annual GISS global temperature analysis. The analysis utilizes three independent data sources provided by other agencies. Quality control checks are regularly performed on that data. The analysis methodology as well as updates to the analysis are publicly available on our website. The agency is confident of the quality of this data and stands by previous scientifically based conclusions regarding global temperatures.” (GISS temperature analysis website: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/)
What agencies? cru etc no thank you be prepared for some legal action…

mkurbo

scienceofdoom (22:33:47) :
Your critique is noted. Although a “nice shot across the bow to open the US Climate Gate war” would have been in order as well – kinder…
I’m happy to see people stepping up to the plate – it takes courage.

stephan

pretty sure the TV station would not have made these statements unless they were covered legally 110%