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.
Hail to the Chiefio… go man go !
Its pronounced “East Ang-glee-ah”
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.
I see that someone else already put in the “Bolivia” link. My comment: Bolivia is in the baseline, but drops out in 1990 (gee… where have I seen that date before…). Current Boliva “anomalies” are created from Grids / Boxes that have the “temperatures” fiilled -in from “nearby” outside Boliva up to 1200 km away. GIStemp claims that they have magic sauce via the Reference Stations Method to make this all 100% fine. (And I think it does help, it just isn’t perfect). So you end up comparing “Peru at the beach and Amazon Jungle, but adjusted” with “real old and cold Bolivia”. It is the assertion that this can be done with fractional degree of C accuracy out of this whole mess that is where they go off the rails, IMHO.
Phil. (05:24:33) :
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.
The source code is up, you can find it at NASA or through my site. The GIStemp tab has a “Geek Corner” toward the bottom with links to source code, data, et. al. I also have an older version of the source code up as browsable pages.
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.
That would be fine if it were not for the fact that the manipulation is done in the past before satellite data are available to compare… GIStemp even puts a “knee” in the code about the time satellites come into being. Gee, I wonder why all three of NCDC, UEA / CRU, and GISS all chose to rewrite the past and all chose to leave the satellite era more stable… Just asking…
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/
The source code and very technical analysis stuff is actually in a different category. I’m trying to keep the “code chalk talk” in a different bucket from the “what it means” stuff, but there is a lot of crossover…
For actual code and stuff:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/category/gisstemp-technical-and-source-code/
Please note that since I got sucked down the rabbit hole of NCDC data changing I’ve let the code review sit. Some of the later stages, like STEP3 and STEP4_5 are basically just the code listings. I really need to add commentary, but “I’ve been busy elsewhere” 😉
I have to agree with an earlier poster! (Gtrip) This look just like a Jack Van Impe Program. Or like those movies in the 70’s that tried to prove UFOs and such. I am objectively looking at this issue and lean against AGW but this program was a joke in how it was presented.
Hopefully the mainstream media will pick up on it and broadcast nationally. Nah that will never happen, they are part of the conspiracy.
Well an interesting program, and some nice sleuthing by EM Smith. Good show there mate; didn’t know you were in San Jose.
Another element of the loss of surface measuring stations, is the extent to which stations are selectively placed at known urban heat islands, such as airport runways. Well of course that is for the benefit and safety of flight cres, who really want to know the runway weather to determine safe take off envelopes.
But a further bias, when such stations are selectively used for climate data.
Well I never have believed much of the historic surface data back before 1980, because the data for 70+% of the global surface was taken from water temperatures, and not air temperatures; and those two aren’t correlated; according to John Christy’s Jan 2001 paper in Geophysical Research letters.
[Quote]
George E. Smith (14:48:25) :
[….]
Another element of the loss of surface measuring stations, is the extent to which stations are selectively placed at known urban heat islands, such as airport runways. Well of course that is for the benefit and safety of flight cres, who really want to know the runway weather to determine safe take off envelopes.
[Unquote]
One of the reasons why the HCN (Historical Climate Networks) were created in the first place was to eliminate the non-representative data of the stations in the Airways Network such as the airports having paved runways, taxiways, and other improper influences.
Independent investigators could look at the other datasets originating in other meterological networks to see if any trends can be discerned with and/or without the influences of UHI. Those small airports which still have grass-gravel runways and taxiways supporting small numbers of propeller driven aircraft in relatively rural environments may provide some useful insights in comparisons to the HCN datasets.
Could be your computer or settings. The videos ar ok here.
This program’s message is quite harmful to the public in the big scheme of things. No, CO2 will not cause the end of the world, but you have to look at this issue from a macro level. All of the things that release CO2 into the air directly harm the environment in other ways. Perhaps when policy makers enact such regulation, they are trying to strengthen America through weining it off of environmentally unsound practices and jump-start the economy and improve living conditions. not a case of big brother trying to get you, it’s a case of government protecting its citizens living now, and those that will inherit this world in generations to come.
viva U-tube 🙂 thanks for help attempts.
Paul Vaughan (12:31:16) : Well, E.M. Smith, I’ve got a serious issue with you:
There are now *3* Canadian Territories:
Yukon, Northwest, & Nunavut.
What ought to have come out of the screen was “3 Canadian Territories: Yukon, NWT, Nunavut, with one station remaining north of 65 degrees”. But I, in self editing to avoid turning my 20 minutes of raw tape into 5 hours… managed to edit out of my words “north of 65 degrees” thinking it sounded kind of geeky for regular folks TV. In retrospect, an error.
All I can say in my defense is that when you are doing all this from memory, no notes, no teleprompter, no rehearsal, “live to tape”, and you KNOW it’s going to be seen all over the place and some folks are going to get really really cranky at you… well, sometimes you mess up a few words.
Frankly, I was trying to remember if it was 60 degrees or 65 degrees about the time I heard “Nunavut” come out of my mouth and decided I needed to ‘cut’ rather than fumble and mumble over the 5 question… If you’ve never been on camera before, you have no idea what it can be like. If you have been, you know.
And to the folks who said “it must take some courage” or simlar. Yeah. Especially knowing that I was standing up to be counted and that “the other side” likes to machine gun folks who stand up. (Or even just raise their hand to ask a question while still seated 😉
So you do what you can, try to remember the “rough points” for next time, and hope there will be a next time.
theenvirokid: Do look at the macro level and see what’s really at stake here. CO2 reduction is purely a revenue grab/wealth transfer. Nothing else. And all those other pet projects I’m sure that are dear to your heart (solving malnutrition, mosquito-borne diseases, childhood mortality, providing fresh water etc) for all the under/undeveloped countries all go by the wayside. It is the world’s poor who will pay the highest price for this—all the $$ that should go to humanitarian causes will go to providing solar panels, wind farms etc—and who will never be allowed to develop their countries to raise the standard of living. So, go ahead, look at what’s going on. And afterwards if you still hold your beliefs, well… maybe you need to take a micro look at yourself.
Well I posted links to this video series on another web forum I visit and already two other individuals have picked them up and are passing them on to others.
That sort of geometric growth does not take long to have effect. Like a nuclear chain reaction all you need is for on average each re-posting results in another individual picking up the content at a frequency greater than one to one.
This multiplication factor must be greater than one for the chain reaction to grow.
Even for very small multiplication factors just slightly larger than unity the number grows very large over time. The process of “going viral” on the internet is very similar, if on average every forwarding of a topic to others results in more than one additional forwarding you have continuous gain over time, with the vast majority of the increase happening perhaps 50-60 generations down the line when the number shoots toward infinity. The limiting factor then becomes how long it takes on average for each viewer to pass on the links to others.
Unlike something like Michael Jackson’s death this forwarding time delay will not be seconds or minutes but probably hours. If this video series goes viral we should know in about 2-3 days I would guess.
Larry
Ralph (02:11:10) :
‘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’
Agree: It is playing with peoples perception by talking in terms of CO2 tonnage. The biggest eyebrow raiser is to inform them in terms of percentage i.e. that CO2 is only 0.038% of atmospheric gases and that over 90% of that is natural.
JonesII (06:45:20) :
‘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.’
More info here:
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/08/24/eco-imperialism-every-environmentalists-dream/#more-660
‘ARC is a secular body that helps the major religions of the world to develop their own environmental programmes…We help the religions link with key environmental organisations – creating powerful alliances…’
Re: E.M.Smith (16:27:05)
I think you probably figured out my comments were offered in light humor.
What do you make of this?
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/JN_QBO.png
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/JN_fQBO.png
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/JN_fQBO..png
And this?
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/JN_Pr.png
The interesting thing is the times when they go out of phase…
The vast bulk of “things that release CO2 into the air” have their natural world equivalents which release most of the same potentially toxic byproducts and much worse. If anything, humanity is reducing many of those toxic releases related to oxidation and carbon dioxide well below many of their natural world equivalents occuring in the absence of human intervention.
In the absence of humans, the world environment was polluted with all manner of toxic substances resulting from natural releases of petroleum, natural gas, forest fires, prarie fires, mineral leaching, and much much more. The Earth’s atmosphere has normally contained 5 to 20 times or more than current levels of carbon dioxide with great beneficial effects to life on this planet. Current levels of carbon dioxide are among only a few occasions in which the planet has suffered such extraordinarily low levels of the trace gas for the past 550 million years in which multicellular life has existed on this planet. If anything, the Earth’s biosphere is suffering a strong deficiency in atmospheric carbon dioxide, and the environment would greatly benefit by its increase to more normal levels relative to the past 550 million years. Unfortunately, humans lack the capability of making any substantial changes to increase or decrease the atmospheric carbon dioxide.
The total carbon dioxide resident in the world reserves of fossil fuels are insufficient to substantially increase atmospheric dioxide, and would be quickly sequestered into the biosphere and lithosphere by natural effects and the biosphere in a very short period of time, even if it were possible to oxidize them all in only one year or one day. A major asteroid strike into a carbonate sea floor causes greater releases of carbon dioxide, and the Earth’s geological record of such past events can scarcely even detect the event by its contribution of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
Attempts by communists, socialists, and other utopians who subscribe to the false faith that a dictatorial elite are somehow going to provide universal control and guide the rest of humanity into a utopian world with a one world “government protecting its citizens living now, and those that will inherit this world in generations to come” demonstrates a profound ignorance of reality and contempt for the awesome and impetuous forces of a chaotic physical Universe. Proof of the failure of such schemes can be found in the former Soviet Union and East European communist governments, where the colossal environmental damage from such utopian experiments still haunt the survivors.
By contrast, it is the energy rich nations which have always accomplished more to reduce environmental damage using the wealth created by that energy usage. Reduced energy usage results in poverty and profound environmental damage. Counseling ruinous and unnecessary restrictions upon usage of fossil fuels is suicidal for hundreds of millions of people around the world, and it guarantees widespread destruction of the environment well beyond anything yet witnessed by mankind. So it is the perpetuation of the utopian myth of central governement control of humanity’s activities and usage of energy which directly and indirectly threatens immediate global destruction of human lives and environment.
Maybe I have been doing this for too long but I notice a bunch of comments relating to this being a breakthrough in the media.
There have been plenty of skeptical documentaries on major news networks seen by much larger audiences,
ABC: Give Me a Break: Global Warming (Video) (8min)
CBC: Doomsday Called Off (Video) (44min)
CNN: Exposed: The Climate of Fear (Video) (42min)
I suspect this is due to a number of new posters since climategate.
Where can I get a DVD?
All copies of Part 4 of John Coleman’s video “Global Warming – The Other Side” have been hacked and now contain a virus, including the one on this site.
I am making this post as a warning. My computer crashed on Part 4 here, on this site, and I checked three other sites with the same results.
That’s all I know.
Theo Goodwin (19:09:52)
Your computer crashed because something is wrong with your computer. There is no virus. These are flash based videos. Please don’t post nonsense.
Why did a mod let that post get through without confirming it?
@Theo Goodwin
Thanks for posting that, I dunno if it’s true, but why would I want to find out?
theenvirokid (20:21:30) :
It is not true, he has no idea what he is talking about. He has something wrong with his computer. When he said his computer crashed, he needs to be explicit, computers can crash from previous infections and all manner of hardware issues and software depending on his OS.
win 2000, firefox 3.5.7 seems to have a problem with part 4 on this machine
win 2000, IE 6 no problem
win xp, IE 8 no problem
Re: E.M.Smith (16:27:05) – & further to Paul Vaughan (18:14:36)
I’ve updated the images to make them easier on the eyes.
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/JN_fQBO.png
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/JN_fGLAAM.png
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/JN_fLOD.png
Note that the only time GLAAM & LOD don’t match QBO & JN*2a phase is when SOI is at 180 degrees:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/JN_fSOI.png
By the way, you performed well in the interview.