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.
Ralph (03:49:26) :
“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.”
And there it is, in a nutshell. Nice summary.
magicjava:
I threw in the line about what the scientists interviewed would know as a throw away line. I’m sure they’ve read the IPCC report but let’s ignore that. Obviously they don’t agree with the IPCC’s conclusions and neither do I.
My main point is, did our presenter explain what the IPCC says and explain the problems with it?
He claims he did. But he presented Al Gore’s movie instead. Thereby misleading his viewers.
Deception? Or ignorance? Has he any idea what’s in the IPCC report? If he hasn’t read it, then he shouldn’t be claiming he’s totally debunked it.
He’s making skeptics look bad. Or maybe he is representative of skeptics, in which case, a sad day..
[quote -=NikFromNYC=- (23:24:47) :] Isn’t the whole point of anomalies that using them instead of absolute temperature removes the problem that Smith is making a case for? [/quote]
Yes and no.
Randomly removing thermometers shouldn’t have any effect on the anomalies being measured.
Removing them from rural areas and only leaving them in urban areas will if the anomalies from urban centers are “copied” to rural areas but then not adjusted downward in rural areas to account for the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect present in urban areas.
As an example, if they are taking the anomalies from L.A. and using it for all of California (which is basically what they’re doing) but only adjusting for UHI in L.A., then you’ll get higher anomalies than you should get throughout nearly all of California.
Is this what’s actually going on? I don’t know. We’d need to see the source code for how these adjustments are done.
scienceofdoom (04:02:14) :
“My main point is, did our presenter explain what the IPCC says and explain the problems with it?”
That isn’t the point of the presentation. What he’s done is to bring viewers up to speed on the lies they are immersed in. There is no point in addressing a topics most haven’t a clue how to understand. They have been brainwashed and need to be deprogrammed, and he has done a magnificent job of that.
-=NikFromNYC=- (23:24:47) :
Isn’t the whole point of anomalies that using them instead of absolute temperature removes the problem that Smith is making a case for?
If you were using the same set of thermometers throughout then perhaps it would.
Take a hypothetical region with very mixed geography. It is 1965 and you have 100 well distributed stations. You derive a base line of 15C for the region from all 100 thermometers. Fast forward to 2010 and you now have 4 thermometers and they are all in the warmer parts of the region (airports/city/beach for example). Averaging the current 4 you get 16.5C in 2010. The anomaly though is calculated using the 1965 regional base level… 16.5-15 to give a +1.5C anomaly for the region.
(From GIStemp)
Anomalies and Absolute Temperatures
Our analysis concerns only temperature anomalies, not absolute temperature. Temperature anomalies are computed relative to the base period 1951-1980. The reason to work with anomalies (…)
Now take a look at the number of stations (middle graph top of page) available between 1951-1980 compared to the present and also note that this was a period of cooling following the 30’s/40’s. Even if temperatures were to return, in reality, to 1950-80 levels I seriously doubt the anomalies will ever reflect that.
Apples and Oranges.
I’m in Australia and would like to preserve the doco so I can show some friends.
What would be the best bit of software I could use on an XP box to capture and save it onto the HDD.
A great video, none of this stuff gets into the media here. I’m going to push it out wherever I can.
Steve Case (01:05:25) :
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.
GHCN – GIStemp Interactions – The Bolivia Effect
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/ghcn-gistemp-interactions-the-bolivia-effect/
GHCN – South America, Andes? What Andes?
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/ghcn-south-america-andes-what-andes/
Really good to see the Chiefio in action!!!
1. Simple to understand rock hard and “idiot proof” arguments which will help to make the case in Congress and the Senate.
2. Good presentation linking almost the entire Skeptic Community of Blogs including Lord Monckton’s SPPI.
3. Love the educative touch with the questions and the entertaining part of the Global Warming band.
In short: A very powerful piece of communication for a very broad public.
That’s exactly what we need and we will need much more of it.
Can someone explain me the reason of the sudden steep increase in global temperatures, as can be seen on the UAH site?
I thought El Nino wasn’t that strong to cause this, large parts (of course not all) of the northern hemisphere were cold the last weeks, the DMI arctic temperatures graph also shows a decline in temperature…
So is this al coming from El Nino?
Nik from NYC:…great dying out of thermometers..
No No say it isn’t so, sob sob..
AGW kills thermometers too?
Where will it all end.
They never hurt anyone, cute little fellas, so quiet in the medicine cupboards and temp stations of the world..
Waaah waah, sniff.hiccough.
etc etc
🙂
Antonia (02:04:12) :
“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.”
My daughter’s in need of some eye opening, so I can appreciate your predicament. I wish you success.
magicjava (03:15:38) :
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.
Which is exactly as it should be.
By the way I just watched the first segment and I hope it gets better because that was terrible.
Ahh, “our” E.M. Smith (Chiefio) — great explanations. Ahh, John Coleman — an imaginative and informative way to educated a large public. A+ job all around. And Heather Moore’s quizes? Well, I bet many viewers wanted to stay around for the answers. Anyone else remember Jennifer at WKRP?
Thanks, Anthony, for helping this production go viral.
I am looking forward to jail time for the perps of scientific (and financial) fraud.
And we have a date from Chiefio — 1989. We can see that there was (nefarious) planning afoot. Next we need a detective novel, or reporting. Who wanted
WARMING? Why, for what purposes? Who paid for it? And why (the unanswerable) would scientists and public servants prostitute themselves for these purposes. If there is not accountabiliyty, there is no hope for truth — or justice — or a free society.
magicjava (04:10:38) :
As an example, if they are taking the anomalies from L.A. and using it for all of California (which is basically what they’re doing) but only adjusting for UHI in L.A., then you’ll get higher anomalies than you should get throughout nearly all of California.
Is this what’s actually going on? I don’t know. We’d need to see the source code for how these adjustments are done.
Go ahead then. no one’s stopping you, let us know what you find out.
So, some pretty clear action points to arise:
1. Present recalculated data for the 1000 or so stations currently used by GISS to show how the earth’s temperature has changed IN THOSE LOCATIONS. That’s useful to know, after all.
2. Require NASA/GISS to recalculate for all the other 5000 stations to show what has happened there. This, of course, presumes that they didn’t throw that data away
3. If they DID throw it away, determine whether the source countries still retain it for their own purposes and, if so, request that they allow it to be resubmitted for further calculation, AS LONG AS the data has been maintained in a way which will not allow modification, manipulation etc.
4. Present the results, no matter what they show, to the general public. If it’s really warming, we’d like to know. If it’s warmed less, but we’re still warming, that’s good to know. If it’s cooling in significant parts of the world, that’s important if we depend on food grown there. Etc etc etc.
This really isn’t too hard to do.
The other key question now is this: do we trust the weather stations? Are they maintained properly, situated properly etc etc?
This isn’t 9/11, it’s not World War III. But it IS necessary to start from the ground up, rebuilding faith and trust in climate science.
Because it’s important. Used properly it can enhance life and minimise death.
Thanks for putting the videos up – I’d really have regretted if I’d not been able to watch them.
Even if ChiefIO, a.k.a E.M.Smith, will get more hot ears from all the praise heaped upon him – he really socked it to them. It was good that what he’d worked out so diligently on his blog is now available for a huge, lay audience.
One more thing: watching the Chinese astrophysicist, it occurred to me that these green AGM taxes on carbon fuels will not just make life a misery for Joe Public.
It means that all our high powered scientific institutions, which need a lot of energy to run experiments – especially physicists and astrophysicists – won’t have enough funds to run those experiments.
Thus its not just the economies in the Western World which will suffer. All our advanced science laboratories, doing the hard science we all need to have a better future, will have their research severely impeded, if not curtailed altogether.
I leave it to your imagination what this will entail for all of us, around the globe.
BBC goes into propaganda hyper mode:
http://blackswhitewash.com/2010/01/15/poor-land-management-no-its-climate-change-killing-kenya/
vg (01:09:20)
@John Wright – Not “RIGO,” methinks, but RICO.
As in the Racketeering-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970.
Ain’t it nice when the MSM wakes up and gets really pissed off?
I am torn in how to respond. I am very skeptical of CAGW scenarios and see the CRU emails and related files as evidence of unethical and unscientific behavior – but they are not sufficent in themselves to dismiss the notion of significant AGW nor is this presentation. The simple fact that the number of stations was reduced does not invalidate the trend data – even though it looks remarkably odd. The piece does not connect the dots. In this respect it is no better or worse than Al Gore’s movie.
The argument that the over-simplifications and distortions are justified because the goal is to inform those who are not familiar with the details of the issue – is unpersuasive to say the least.
My concern is that it is too easy to show the flaws in the piece and thereby dismiss more scientifically and rigorously constructed arguments. I had the same reaction to the recent Not Evil, Just Wrong.
That said, thanks for providing access to the show. I hope it leads to more detailed discussions.
VG (01:09:20)
“The agency (NASA) is confident of the quality of this data…”
“Quality control checks are performed on the data.”
Dr. James Hanson.
I seem to recall a blogger caught them outright when they released, to the media, temperature data from GISS announcing that last October was the warmest ever when in fact they posted the September information instead.
When confronted with this faux pas, the spokesman admitted they trusted the data from GISS and didn’t check it before giving it to the media. So much for quality control.
All this breaking information these days is making my head reel.
Espen (01:50:01) :
Unfortunately, there are only very few really long records
There is more length to the records than NASA GISS, NCDC and CRU allow for.
That is part & parcel of their half-truths.
The manipulation/erasure of data goes deep, and they all know it.
Joe D’Aleo knows it, and I know it too. I see it firsthand, and my conversation with NCDC is an exercise in futility as they circularly evade. ANYBODY who digs for records will soon come to find out just how bad it really is. It’s ugly, and we all pay taxes to have our precious data butchered.
Ok, he’s talking about station dropout in video 4. He says something to the effect of there being 4 stations in California. But when I look at Anthony’s distribution of stations on surfacestations.org, there are many more than 4 stations in California.
Is he saying that when it comes time to do the math, only data from 4 stations is used?
I hope this leads, not to more circular conversations with bloody hands, but with some serious dismissals of agency heads and perpetrators who have participated in this hoax. Nobody is getting anywhere with these people.
They have literally handcuffed themselves to their warming agenda and models. While the world cools and the climate changes, all they can do now is to watch thier forecasting disintegrate.
Espen
There are quite a few long records which I collect here
http://climatereason.com/LittleIceAgeThermometers/
However we should bear in mind that a therrmometer only measures its immediate micro climate. It might start off in parkland on the edge of a small town which then develops into a city-hence a considerable UHi effect which is not properly accounted for.
More likely it has been moved from its original position and therefore it records a micro climate completely unrelated to its origins. A favourite place these days is next to runways on an Airport-this can have a dramatic effect on temperature.
One of many examples I have collected is at Bologna Italy where the station moved from its ancient University parkland location to here-Marconi Airport.
http://server.gladstonefamily.net/site/LIPE
We are simply not comparing like for like with temperature records and in my opinion they need thorough auditing.
Tonyb