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.
I was certainly glad to see this airing at least somewhere in the US, however, I was not thrilled with the presentation. First of all, although the female presenting the questions at the end of each segment was a pleasure to look at, the whole concept of the quizzes was unnecessary. Additionally, I would have preferred if John did not come righ out presenting his side of the global warming debate as undeniable fact and that the alarmists are wrong. I firmly believe that the alarmists are wrong and that scientific fraud was committed, but I would have preferred John to present both sides and question the viewer to draw their own conclusions. Anyone who would watch this program and then do some web surfing to try to collect info on this for their own decision making process, would most certainly come out on the right side.
The issue is not whether CO2 initiated past glaciations, although I recently participated in a forum with a Lehigh Univ professor who presented graphics in which he made that inference (wouldn’t come right out and say it, but the message was there until I came on). The point of this is that the paleoclimatological record does NOT show that CO2 causes temperature increases – it shows that past CO2 spikes were caused by temperature increases. The reason for focussing on Gore is that long after the climate community recognized what geologists already knew, Gore’s propaganda piece – all of it – is founded on a known LIE over cause and effect between T and CO2 in the geologic past. The oar that the IPCC shoved in is nothing more than speculation that increased or decreased CO2 could have been a factor in glaciation and interglacial episodes as a dampening or amplifying factor.
The point is a simple one about solubility of gases in liquids and where the CO2 comes from NATURALLY, and how its increases and decreases in the geologic past are a record of natural climate variability which had NO effect on the paleoclimate but was, rather, CAUSED BY the paleoclimate. I have been demonstrating it to my Intro classes for years and years using a warm bottle of seltzer, a chilled bottle of seltzer and two volunteers, one of which is about to get really wet.
Mike Ramsey (07:24:47) :
If the raw data exists then will someone please take on the task of recomputing global temperatures.
I’ve looked into that for a local station. The problem I encountered is if you download what they call the “Raw Data” from the NCDC, it has already been adjusted for TOBS, site changes, etc. The raw data only exists (at least in the USA) on the original scaned monthly data sheets sent to the NCDC. To get these you must pay a fee for each years data, then transcribe them yourself. For 5000 or so stations the cost is in the millions. Understand, I’m not saying the NCDC doesn’t have the raw data in some downloadable format, only that they are trying to obfuscate it’s utilization. If someone is sure they have obtained the absolute raw data, please inform me.
scaned = scanned
Good video…… The truth will set the Flamingo freeeee!… But they may still need to take it to Florida before the next winter;-)
Hearty congrats to E.M. Smith and all the other contributors that most of us know well thanks to WUWT. The level of the program was perfect. It was exactly what is needed to thwart Al Gore.
Now, what about part II? We have tons most information to present. Another segments might cover the following:
Anthony’s surface3 station work.
The effect of UHI.
Steve McIntye’s work discrediting Mann and other Paleo studies.
The homogenization of temperature data highlighting Darwin, etc.
I could go on and on so maybe we need parts III and IV as well.
It’s now up the the rest of us to spread the message. Send this video to your local newpapers and TV stations. Send it to your congress-person. Strike while the iron is hot!
[quote Phil. (05:24:33) :]
magicjava (04:10:38) :
Go ahead then. no one’s stopping you, let us know what you find out.[/quote]
Is the source code for these adjustments available online? I’ve only seen model source code.
jack morrow (07:33:35) :
OT
Heard on radio where Mike Mann just received a $500, 000 grant from Obama administration. True????
True. Mann received job stimulus funds to assist “postdoctoral scholars and graduate students and contribut[e] to the understanding of abrupt climate change.”
http://biggovernment.com/2010/01/14/hide-the-job-decline-stimulus-funds-to-climategate-professor/
One of about 40,500 Googlehits for Michael Mann $500,000 grant.
“Tim Clark (07:54:43) :
[…]
To get these you must pay a fee for each years data, then transcribe them yourself. For 5000 or so stations the cost is in the millions.”
Stimulus money for climate change research!
magicjava (08:05:13) :
Is the source code for these adjustments available online? I’ve only seen model source code.
That’s exactly what E.M. is working with. See:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/category/agw-and-gistemp-issues/
scienceofdoom (01:05:16) :
I can’t see where the IPCC says Gores film is rubbish.
In their AR4 SPM they say “The atmospheric concentration
of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural
range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as
determined from ice cores”.
The general public knows the above, even though they didn’t read the report, but how? Because they saw it on Al Gores movie, he had to get up on a hoist to point where the CO2 level was heading, a great visual ploy.
So debunking Al Gore there was the same as debunking the IPCC, afterall, Al Gore is their quasi or proxy conduit to the populace, and it’s that populace the presenter was trying to reach.
I believe he did a very good job, and i believe this was a good day for skeptics. IMHO
xyzlatin (4:25:02) Use Realplayer/Realdownloader…Should work unless you’ve got a “Rudd et
al-filter”… 🙂 SL Solna Sweden 17 days and counting below 0C but close to
Stockholm and Baltic coast still relatively “warm”…
Tom I’m going to go out on a lim here a guess you are not in the US. The reason I say this is that as a US citizen with a US IP address I a can access the scanned paper copies NCDC maintains as a PDF page. Unfortunately you only get one page at a time and have to hand transcribe. Here is the link I use to get in:
http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/coop/coop.html
On the page it has this:
Your Access is Free
(xxx-xx-xxx-xxx.client.mchsi.com)
I personnally in my spare time have started work on the State College PA paper record, loggin by hand the Tmax, Tmin and Tmean for each month. It is slow going because for some of the records it looks like the scanner couldn’t handle old carbon copies of the records and it is hard to read. After about an hour your eyes want to bleed.
Ack I meant Tim not Tom darn O and I next to each other.
Mike Ramsey (07:24:47) :
If the raw data exists then will someone please take on the task of recomputing global temperatures.
At this point I’m seriously wondering, “Why bother?” Given the satellite and geophysical records as recorders, we need to start over on any other surface recording and I’m not going to trust the Gov’t to have anything to do with it, nor the Universities, who haven’t done hardly anything of use either. At this point I’ve about got more faith in the Russians! They never bought AGW to begin with.
Spread the word folks,spread the word, get your favorite websites to link to the story.MSM may pick up on this yet and with luck Christopher Booker on the UK Telegraph may showcase it. I will give up drinking ale forever if it makes the BBC.
Well OK maybe for a week.
Boballab
Could you not download the page, print it out and then apply an OCR to it?
[quote Tim Clark (08:20:45) :]
magicjava (08:05:13) :
Is the source code for these adjustments available online? I’ve only seen model source code.
That’s exactly what E.M. is working with. See:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/category/agw-and-gistemp-issues/
[/quote]
Thanks Tim. If he’s already on it, I’ll let him do it.
Still, it’d be nice to have the code just in case. I didn’t notice a download link in any of his blog articles. I’ll shoot him an e-mail and ask where he got it.
From the link posted by Bill Tuttle
“The latest example of this is a $500,000 grant to Michael Mann, Professor at Penn State University and unintended c0-star of the ClimateGate e-mail scandal. The leaked e-mails revealed collaboration among scientists to stifle dissenting views on the extent of man-made global warming.”
Bail money 🙂
I think this coverage was a bit too one sided. You should not lead off a piece of journalism with a line like “There is no man made global warming” unless you have 100% conclusive proof that there is no man made global warming. The “I want you to open your mind for an hour…” line was condescending and does our side no good at all. And Coleman licking the boots of his experts in interviews and asking no tough questions at all…not to mention not having someone…even one person…on from the warming alarmist side…didn’t do us any favors either.
Bad journalism all the way around…and I was so hoping this would feel like a real report and maybe convince a few people.
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.
Are you getting paid to spout this nonsense or does it just come naturally?
An excellent program. My jaw hit the floor when that girl said that in order to reduce her global footprint she was picking up after her dog, and recycling. I wish Coleman had asked her how exactly dog turds lead to global warming. But it just illustrates what the government and IPCC already know: people are generally stupid. And the Stupid are easily manipulated.
boballab (08:33:44):
Thanks. Some issues:
1. The Wichita station only has one report and it is for river level.
2. No data is available pre-1980 (or perhaps for previous station locations) for the 4 or 5 Kansas stations I reviewed.
Is it just me?
Just watching part 4 now.
Turns out Joseph D’Aleo lives in my hometown.
Has anyone got the videos to play? It does not play for me.
Firefox 3.5.7, Flash 10.0.r42, and Flashblock 1.5.11.2 (with and without both sites white listed, then with Flashblock disabled)