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.
Nice to see that this anti-AGW gains more and more momentum
and then some OT from the American Spectator
Joe D’Aleo might like to correct some typos in his document linked to above. I saved a copy to show people but it would be nice to get a clean version.
1. ‘interpolation to vacant data grids’ doesn’t make sense. For vacant data grids or something might be clearer.
2. The latin has no translation and Gandhi’s quote is interesting but mere opinion.
1. The Earth’s population has increased from 1.5 to 6.7 BILLION not million.
2. Rural data ‘includes’ should be included.
Grammar cops. We’re here to help 🙂
No pun intended, but despite the subdued atmosphere I think this show was the knock-out punch. No doom and gloom, no arogant denial or pushing any political buttons. Nope, just a bunch of mostly, uh… old men… speaking plainly, reporting the facts and nothin’ but the facts.
🙂
And I even got a history lesson (Revel). How about that!
Anyway, does anyone know how many people viewed the airing of this? I know KUSI is a small station, but in a big city like San Diego… who knows? It will surely be put up all over the internet and spread in time, though.
Again, my thanks to Anthony for putting this up.
From The Beeb:
Now someone has found out that increase in CO2 follow temp
The doomsday clock is ticking for Hansen, Gore, Schmidt et al. A bit sound bitey to my English ears but part four was well done. And well done to E.M. Smith. Very clear, very concise and to the point. Nail it on ’em and make sure it stays nailed!
In my view, the beginning of the media breakthrough! No matter one’s opinion about the quality of this presentation, I realise that this was a mildly-worded piece pitched at a fairly low level to begin to crack open the general trust of the public in so-called ‘authoritative figures’ such as Al Gore and Michael Mann, who have carried out the absolutely fraudulent manipulation of data that the warmist scam is based on.
I would bet a pound to a nob of horse manure that the dear old BBC carries on justifying the unjustifiable, and will be the last media organ to eventually be shamed into reporting the facts.
Nik: Isn’t the whole point of anomalies that using them instead of absolute temperature removes the problem that Smith is making a case for?
Your point would be valid if only long-lived stations were used. Unfortunately, there are only very few really long records, and even most of these consists of data from stations that have been moved around in those locations.
The temperatures are computed for “grid cells” taking into account the temperatures of stations up to 1200 km away when there are no local data. Thus, as E.M.Smith has pointed out, beach thermometers will be used to compute inland temperatures if the inland thermometers are no longer recorded.
(Btw. also see the recent post from Jeff Id of the AirVent to see what happens if you only use the long-lived stations form GHCN)
Segment 4
I’m so angry. These creeps need to go to jail.
>>But it’s a sad day for skepticism when someone
>>>produces this kind of material.
Yes, but you have to understand the audience they are targeting. The channel will know their standard audience and adjust accordingly, otherwise it will be over their heads and they will switch off.
Oh, and a bit of Heather Moore helps. Nothing to do with the science, of course, but she has a couple of good points that help keep the customers viewing.
Having said that, even the BBC’s flagship science program ‘Horizon’ has sunk to these levels. Its now aimed at the junior-school level.
.
REPLY: Part 4 is the best – Anthony.
Yep that’s the bit I’m going to send to one of my sons who works in the global warming industry. He was always a very bright lad and might open his mind.
Smith’s description of reducing and contracting the sample locations towards major lowland population centers is stunning. I am appalled by the implications of it. For me, the damage to the global warming argument is wholly devastating.
Very little remains. A poor understanding of complex climate process has served as the basis for immense, forced posturing.
Raving is gobsmacked.
Beautiful!
Slowly but surely, it is getting OUT there.
One day, some of these people are going to wonder why they accepted the “science” of global warming.
My point (which I have put forward here and elsewhere for over 5 years) is that when the sheeple realise that they have been duped, it will reflect badly upon ALL science, not just the AGW charlatans and carpet-baggers.
>>scienceofdoom (22:33:47) :
>>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).
>>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.
I think you are wrong in both cases. The presenter was trying to counter the general perceptions that have been put across in the media.
The media appear to be saying that:
a. CO2 is the major CAUSE of Global Warming (rather than being a minor augmentation feedback agent).
b. CO2 is being output by the billions of tonnes by industry, and is ‘building up in the atmosphere’. The image is of an atmosphere with 20% CO2 concentration.
And many in the media (not knowing any better) may even believe this. So it is nice to have a truthful argument for a change – even if it was delivered in words of one syllable, with a couple of good points – to put the record straight.
.
This will be fought out in the courts its the only way… unfortunately
When you want to get people to believe a lie, shock them. When you want to convince them they’ve been had, you need to proceed gently, but firmly and confidently, just as Mr. Coleman is doing. His task is one of deprogramming, not of rocket science.
I’ve watched the fist two, and will finish a bit later time permitting. If #4 is the best, as Anthony says, I’m really looking forward to it, because what I’ve seen so far is masterfully done. Sure, it’s not heavy on detail, but it paints a broad, clear and accurate picture of not only the science, but also the selfish motives of those pushing the falsehoods, as well as the dire consequences for us if we allow them to set the agenda.
I give it an A+ so far.
Ralph (02:11:10) :
Here’s a really good WUWT piece dealing with that very topic.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/
Obviously, in an hour show, Mr. Coleman can’t go into that kind of depth.
Phil Jones said in an email dated 21 Feb 2005:
‘The sceptics seem to be building up a head of steam here. Maybe we can use this to our advantage to get the series updated. Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere rather than surface data.’
Business as usual, hiding the decline.
I enjoyed it more than Avatar cos it was real stuff! 🙂
Sure its’ only a small TV station but it’s out there on the web – the biggest TV station ever!
[quote scienceofdoom (01:05:16)] :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”. [/quote]
That’s not the impression I got from the video. It seemed to me they were saying that, overall, the effects of CO2 don’t match the predictions of the IPCC.
And, with all due respect, there’s nothing in your blog post that supports their conclusions either.
We can measure the top of the atmosphere (TOA) energies for out-going long wave radiation and there’s been no significant decrease in that value for the past 20 years. It’s about at the same place in 2002 that it was at in 1983.
See for yourself here: http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/GIFS/LW.gif
TOA is the top line.
Very interesting at useful presentations.
One interesting point here from Joseph D’Aleo’s presentation:
He mentions well established 106 cycle (at -1.35 min time counter) in the solar activity, occasionally Dr. Svalgaard has referred to a108 year solar cycle too. A simple mathematical representation of the medium term of solar cycles can be achieved by 3 simple formulae describing periodicity, amplitude and anomalies. The anomalies formula has approx. 107 year long cycle of low SS cycles combined with reoccurring long solar minima. There is also clear indication of a possible forthcoming solar activity reduction to the level of the mentioned Dalton Minimum.
Result of this graphical analysis can be seen here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSC1.htm
For more information see also:
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/GandF.htm
CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE IS .03%, WHICH IS 1 PART IN 3333
@Ralph (02:11:10) :
Addressing scienceofdoom’s criticism of CO2 being a trace gas, I wonder if he could find the CO2 molecule here, at it’s illustrated actual atmospheric concentration, if they were moving like real particles?
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
The rest of the atmosphere doesn’t absorb the radiation, only the CO2, so the only way the CO2 can influence the air it’s surrounded by is kinetically.
Now:
1. how much does the thermal energy of CO2 increase per photon absorbed?
2. how much is the thermal energy of the rest of the atmosphere going to increase under the kinetic influence of the increased energy of the CO2 molecules it contains?
That poor little CO2 molecule ( the lonely little “1” above) sure has it’s work cut out for it.
In this paper, in German, there’s an illustration of Dr. Wood’s experiment of 1909, in which he showed that the greenhouse theory may well be hokum (page 6).
http://www.frank-wettert.de/wp-content/report-klimaretter-1-1.pdf
And, in this article, a thoughtful geologist goes into some detail about what is wrong with the “greenhouse” theory, from which it is a little clearly why predicting the future of something about which you have no idea what it’s doing now isn’t science (didn’t we already know that?).
http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/
Oh, I see what I did wrong. It’s all still there, just that it’s run off. I needed to insert carriage returns at the ends of the lines to format it to fit the page. Sorry.
John Coleman comes across as the Walter Cronkite of AGW scepticism.
A good informative report that I think is effective in making people think twice about the science.
GIGO? What I learn from Segment 4 is that there’s yet another pitfall in computer processing of real data as seen by Mann et alia: RIGO – Riches In, Garbage Out.
[More like GIRO – RT mod]
>>yonason (03:29:23) :
>>The rest of the atmosphere doesn’t absorb the
>>radiation, only the CO2,
And that is the other big lie/misrepresentation that has crept into the media, to get perpetuated by the less educated – that CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas.
Fortunately (for us), the rest of the atmosphere DOES absorb and re-radiate long-wave radiation, and the primary agent here is water vapour (approx 95% of the greenhouse affect). I think water should also be outlawed as a dangerous pollutant, and taxed/banned 😉
So this is another ‘often ignored truth’ that this simple program put across – that CO2 is a minor player in all this. Yes, the program was simplistic and aimed at the lower stratum, but there will still be a lot of people out there with dropped jaws saying, ‘I did not know that’. Are the government lying to us?
And that is just what true science needs.
.