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.
BarnesandNoble.com/Books
search results
Storms of My Grandchildren, James Hansen, Book
So now James can write a doping/duping scandel appendix. to his grand kiddies.
It is very sad to leave a legacy of fraud in front of little innocent eyes.
This explains why crooks want to write their own history and beat the truth that come later.
Dr. Bob writes:
“Is he saying that when it comes time to do the math, only data from 4 stations is used?”
Yep. It seems that the thermometric reading stations that were not recording warmer temperatures had their outputs dropped from the federal government’s datasets. They didn’t cease to exist. Their readings just ceased to be figured into the regional temperature assessments, and the areas where the weather stations were located got “homogenized” into other areas at lower altitudes and closer proximity to warming sources like the coastline, etc.
This is nothing more than deliberate fraud. Purposeful “cooking of the books.” Lying.
Given that it was done on the taxpayers’ dime by officers of the civil government itself (or contractors engaged by the government), it constitutes malfeasance in public office, and that’s a criminal offense.
And I strongly suspect that the RICO Act has to come in here, too.
Opps, some of my previous comment dropped out, imagine that!
E.M.— I thought someone in your position would be bigger! (Roadhouse)
Mammoth job.
Very well done! Here’s to you. ;~D
pyromancer writes:
“Next we need a detective novel, or reporting. ”
You’ve already got it. In 2004, Michael Crichton published State of Fear, which the mainstream media (warmists all) attacked vehemently.
Definitely “a detective novel,” though sold as a technothriller.
Lets get this one in the public schools.
@science of doom,
you keep bringing up the IpCC reports asserting that these reports are supposed to be the ultimate authority. They are not. Openheimmer, a major man made global warming proponent, relented when questioned about the make up of the IPCC. he said that only 20% of the IPCC panel consisted of people that have ANY knowledge of the climate. The rest of the panel are economists, envioromentalists and other non-climate scientists. Furthermore, of these 20% most of these scientists do not agree with the upper levels of the UN and have their research, or comments removed by Banter, another man made global warming proponent. Some of these scientists have threatened to sue to get their names off of these reports but the UN does not want to take their names off as it ruins the UN propaganda that all the scientists are in agreement. The IPCC is really run but a handful of people so stop saying to read teh IPCC report when it is nothing but a political report sanctioned by the upper levels at the UN>
rabidfox (21:59:26) said:
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.
Do not despair!
(a) check the ratings for Fox. They are wiping the floor with every other cable outlet, and threatening the networks
(b) as the father of two “millenials” (one premed and one in grad school) I can assure you that internet exposure (particularly an organic, so-called “viral” exposure) is exponentially more important than ANY mainstream medium.
My observation is that news has become Non-Newtonian; that is, it’s now “shear-rate dependent”. The FASTER it accelerates, the FARTHER it moves.
The MSM are stuck with an old Newtonian, linear model of “‘legs”; that is, that there’s a linear relationship between “coverage” (meaning the MSM imprimateur) and “import”. Ain’t true. The dominate factor now is dv/dt; I suppose the engineering units of that would be “internet hits per second per second”.
Bernie writes:
“…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 sufficient in themselves to dismiss the notion of significant AGW….”
They need not be. In situations like this one, the mindset of medical diagnosis must be applied. Think of the way that physician Arthur Conan Doyle modeled the methods of his character Sherlock Holmes upon Dr. Joseph Bell, under whom Doyle served a clinical clerkship in 1877.
The process of diagnosis begins with what will almost always appear to the untrained mind to be insignificant information. A patient’s gait, the color of his skin, the distribution and texture of the hair on his head, innumerable other characteristics. These indicators as well as elements of the patient’s past history may be unrelated to his presenting complaint, but commonly give evidence of significant pathology.
The physician, observing such superficially unrelated phenomena, has a duty to the patient to pursue evaluation to rule out that pathology to be best of his ability. Failure to do so constitutes professional malpractice.
Is this understood?
Bernie, I suspect that you are not trained in either the sciences in general or in diagnosis particularly.
What is found in the Climategate data dump (only a small part of which is made up of the e-mails you mention) is like that first glance at the patient as he walks into the clinic.
Hell, it’s much, much more. The “patient” in the Climategate case is a gaunt, cyanotic, glassy-eyed, shambling individual whose skin is pale, taut, and bereft of perspiration, his breathing shallow, his clothes hanging loose upon his frame.
The Climategate case is hellacious pathology, right from the git-go. And every deeper look into the details thereof has been demonstrating – without fail – that the disease is real, it’s incredibly serious, and it’s got to be addressed.
That disease is rank and pervasive corruption in support of massive fraud.
And, yes, it’s been perpetrated by officers of the U.S. government.
For you to take an essentially “agnostic” position on this subject is irresponsible in the extreme.
Hell, were you a fellow physician, I’d report you to the hospital administration as a dangerous liability risk, and to the pertinent professional societies as having breached standard of care.
As it’s going to take 3 years for the CRU investigation into Jones to come to fruition in UK it is good to see the US able to short-circuit this and set the ball rolling right now. I see that Hansen has issued a denial so expect legals to follow – goody !
This criminal exposure combined with the attached discovery that CO2 has already done all it can do to the climate somewhat defuses the AGW case.
Just how the libtards will climb down from their castle in the air will be fascinating to see – one hopes it will be voluntary and with some dignity rather than at their embarrassing ‘day in court’.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/co2_cannnot_cause.html
“Benjamin (01:21:39) :
[…]
And I even got a history lesson (Revel). How about that! ”
Revelle. I didn’t know that either. This rehabilitates him very much. And discredits Al Gore some more.
Dr. Bob (05:59:14) :
Is he saying that when it comes time to do the math, only data from 4 stations is used?
Yes. I have relations and friends all over No. Calif., and they were totally msytified that the late summer and early fall we all experienced was somehow
turned into the Xth warmest in history.
What E.M. Smith has described is how they did that.
They cheated by not using the vast majority of the temperature data.
However, global warmer preachers keep on preaching all over the world, all the time through ads, NGOs, journalists, even the pope has accepted the new creed.
Thanks Anthony for getting the video up.
Let’s see, when can I watch …
The counter argument is the satellite data and surface records tell the same story so it does not matter if the surface data has been manipulated.
I enjoyed Part 4—the meat of the show—and even though the presenter came across like Ray Goulding (from Bob and Ray, my fav deadpan comedians), he presented his argument for his audience; i.e. the people who were shown on the “Man in the Street” interviews.
What struck me most was the deletion of data stations in the late ’80s early ’90s. When was that decision made, who made it, and why?
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?”
Let’s say you want to make a comparison of New York Yankee teams for offensive effectiveness. Take the team batting average of the 1956 Yankees using all the team members batting averages ( which includes pitchers and subs). Now take the 2009 team batting average but only use the averages of the starting 8 plus designated hitter (which does not include any pitchers or subs). Use those figures to see which has a higher batting average anomaly against the batting average of the entire team history of all Yankee batters. Not really a good way to do this is it.
Prince Philip:
1) For eco/environmental programs to be successful, it needed the religions of the world to invest it with some sort of “spiritual imperative”;
2) Religious leaders can then influence their own people, especially in backward countries with high illiteracy, to the cause of ecology and environmentalism. Prince Philip explained, “In many parts of the world, the only person with influence is the local religious leader.”
http://www.rightsidenews.com/201001017982/energy-and-environment/qholyq-green-unholy-insanity.html
Thanks for passing this along vg (01:09:20) :
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.”
NASA can say they have not manipulated any data and probably be correct but the problem it seems to me is in the statistical methods used compute meaningful information across multiple sets of the data. Even a layman can understand the problem with some data sets having temperature readings from cold regions while other data sets omit these temperature readings. Shouldn’t this introduce some pretty significant errors in any kind of trend analysis? This part of the puzzle does not seem too difficult to understand.
DR (07:01:58) :
The counter argument is the satellite data and surface records tell the same story
Trend may have similarities. But GISS is off beam. It changed the track it was on beginning in 1989. And it gets worse after that.
Compare satellite to GISS.
If the raw data exists then will someone please take on the task of recomputing global temperatures. If you are going to strike stations, strike the urban stations since their data can’t be trusted. Better yet, Anthony did a survey of the USA stations. What if only data from those stations that passed siting standards were used? What would the temperature record look like then?
Mike Ramsey
Dr. Bob (05:59:14) :
Is he saying that when it comes time to do the math, only data from 4 stations is used?
I believe E.M. will probably respond to questions similar to this. But, yes, that is what his analysis shows:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/07/gistemp-ghcn-selection-bias-measured-0-6-c/
I suggest folks with similar questions refer to his blog.
Ron de Haan (04:50:43) :
1. Simple to understand rock hard and “idiot proof” arguments which will help to make the case in Congress and the Senate.
I think you give our government officials too much intelligence.
OT
Heard on radio where Mike Mann just received a $500, 000 grant from Obama administration. True????
scienceofdoom
According to Richard Tol on January 12, 2010, at http://umbrellog.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?p=95688#p95688 the following statement – “Summary for Policy Makers is very selective, up to the point of twisting the chapters’ findings beyond recognition. In case of SAR WG3 Chapter 6, this was done against the will of the authors. The IPCC has learned from that. The selection process for authors is now more careful (awkward people like myself are not welcome) and there is self-selection too (David Pearce withdrew).” Richard Tol
CLIMATE POLICY—FROM RIO TO KYOTO
A Political Issue for 2000—and Beyond
http://media.hoover.org/documents/epp_102b.pdf
(In particular refer to page 19/20: ‘Politics Enters into Drafting the IPCC Report.’ Here examples are given of ‘substantial changes … made between the time when the report was approved in Madrid and the time it was printed.The convening lead author, Ben Santer, readily admitted to making these changes.)
DR (07:01:58) :
The counter argument is the satellite data and surface records tell the same story so it does not matter if the surface data has been manipulated.
I think you’re missing the point. Can you show me satellite data for the base period from 1950-1980? Is the current atsmospheric anomaly different from say, 1930-1940? Was the MWP warmer than now? Do climate cycles exist?
Calibrating the curve to the period 1950-1980, adjusting all temperatures prior to 1990 downward, then comparing that to a 30 year satellite record leaves a little to be desired.
DR (07:01:58) :
The counter argument is the satellite data and surface records tell the same story so it does not matter if the surface data has been manipulated.
We have satellite data prior to 1979?
Wow…