Climategate

Himalaya Glaciers NOT Shrinking
Just seen this: http://yesbuthowever.com/himalayan-glaciers-8136289/
“India’s Ministry of Environment and Forests has released a comprehensive report on the Himalayan glaciers by the eminent Dr. V.K. Raina, ex-Deputy Director of the Geological Survey of India. According to his report, the Saichen glacier has “not shown any remarkable retreat in the last 50 years.” In fact, it is growing. Even Richard Armstrong, Senior Research Scientist at the University of Colorado, and the man who briefed Al Gore on glaciers, concluded there was no major melting in Himalayan glaciers above 5,400 meters. Professor Armstrong’s research, as is typical in the field, uses satellite-gathered data. Dr. Raina and his team actually physically sampled 20 of the 200 Himalayan glaciers over a period of many years. They found little “snout” retreat, if any. The snout is the longest extension of a glacier – the finger. They also found no discernible pattern to glacier melt rates. As Raina put it, “ultimately the movements [of glaciers] are due to climate and snowfall in particular, but the factors are so varied that the snout movements appear to be peculiar to each particular glacier.”
The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 report had concluded Himalayan glaciers were receding at such a fast rate they could be gone by 2035 or earlier. Raina’s report acknowledges general glacier retreat, but finds no evidence of direct causation by carbon emission. Some glaciers even grew during periods of increased industrialization.”

“For the sake of science, Dick, for the sake of collegiality, for your own sake, give it a rest. You know as well as I do that the issue isn’t global warming. The issue is what side of the bread our butter is on.”
“Now, we’re climatologists, for crying out loud,…”
…-
“The Climate Scam: Did You Read It First Here?
November 27, 2009 11:55 AM by N. Joseph Potts (Archive)
Anthropogenic global warming has been a dubious proposition from the outset to anyone with the slightest understanding of social science as it pertains to coercive government, science “science,” and the nexus of the two. Even if you didn’t read about it elsewhere (and there were places where you could), you could (and should) have easily thought up the evil plot in the whole thing.
Last week, Lilburne brought this Blog the report many of us have been waiting for for years: It’s all a put-up job.
But way back (it seems so long ago) in 2006, though, the Daily Articles of this site were graced by a put-up job by none other than myself, titled “How to Achieve Scientific Consensus,” it being an explicitly phony “e-mail” to Warming Denialist Richard Lindzen explaining how his failure to cooperate in the Great Professional Project of Warming Alarmism was messing up not only his career, but that of many of his colleagues.
I find it makes gratifying reading in light of the recent exposure of the global warming boondoggle.
But then, I like my own stuff. Hope you do, too, at least in this case.”
http://blog.mises.org/archives/011105.asp
…-
“How to Achieve Scientific “Consensus”
Mises Daily: Monday, August 14, 2006 by N. Joseph Potts
Date: August 14, 2006
To: Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, MIT
From: Dr. John Q. Colleague [not anyone’s real name]
Subj: Scientific Solidarity
I’m sorry I had to decline your lunch invitation today. You seemed to know the excuse I gave you was just a cover. Of course, the reality was simply that the tenure committee is considering my application this week, and it just wouldn’t do at this particular moment for me to be seen hobnobbing with you.
I judge others have come up with their own excuses; the sight of you dining alone at the Faculty Club has become a rather forlorn feature of my everyday. As many years as I’ve known you, and as closely as we’ve worked together, I’ve decided to do you the favor evidently none of our colleagues has seen his way to doing and make a clean breast of things.
The issue, of course, is your ongoing insistence, exemplified most by your op ed in the Wall Street Journal for July 2, of bucking the consensus that all the rest of us in the department, and indeed, all over the world, have arrived at regarding the issue of global warming. I know you know this has estranged you from the great majority of the rest of your colleagues, including people like me who really agree with you, and I suspect you accept this, but I’d like to make it clear to you just how and why it does so, and what the further damage is or may be that your breaking ranks with our profession really does.
When you were starting out in this field 45 years ago, things were very different. For one thing, you didn’t have to be a grant magnet to hold an academic post at a place like MIT — you could get by just teaching and publishing the occasional article. For another, you were just weathermen back then, or meteorologists, as you were called by the few who cared to demonstrate respect for what you were doing.
Today, there’s a lot more money and a lot more candidates for what seems like fewer and fewer posts that offer any kind of real future. And that money — that grant money that comes from a few influential foundations but most of all, from Uncle — it flows like a thing you and I understand: a current. Like a current, it flows away from one thing, and toward another thing, and what it’s flowing toward now is what Al Gore terms the planetary emergency of global warming.
Now take a young professor trying to keep his head above water in this sweeping torrent — me, if you insist, but there are thousands of us in the world scientific community trying to run before this tide. […]
Through the work of stalwarts like Michael Mann of the University of Virginia, who produced the “hockey stick” graph of millennial global temperature that was published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we’re no longer the butt of jokes about weathermen who look out the window to decide whether to carry an umbrella after having made a weather forecast. Now, we’re climatologists, for crying out loud,…”
http://mises.org/daily/2267

PSU investigates ‘Climategate’
The Daily Collegian [Penn State’s Newspaper] ^ | 11/30/9 | Laura Nichols
Penn State is conducting an inquiry into the controversy surrounding a Penn State professor whose illegally leaked e-mails have sparked an international debate over whether he and his colleagues distorted data on global warming….
The e-mails appeared to indicate that the director of the research unit in question — Phil Jones — contacted his colleagues to request they delete certain exchanges….
Though he says he was asked to delete selected e-mails by Jones, Mann said he did not comply with the request. He does not believe any of his colleagues went through with the deletion either….
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/11/30/psu_investigates_climategate.aspx
………
I emailed the Collegian when this first broke.
Mann acted on the delete email He asked Gene Wahl to delete the emails:
From: Phil Jones p.jones@x To: “Michael E. Mann” mann@xxx Subject: IPCC & FOI Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008 Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?
From: Michael Mann mann@xxx
To: Phil Jones p.jones@xx
Subject: Re: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 08:12:02 -0400
Reply-to: mann@xxx
Hi Phil,
laughable that CA would claim to have discovered the problem. They would have run off to the Wall Street Journal for an exclusive were that to have been true.
I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP. His new email is: generwahl@xxx

The IPCC head keeps deluding himself (“The processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report.” An author or two? How about the whole team?). On top of that, questions about BBC’s role (or lack of) in the Climategate scandal:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6690110/Leaked-climate-change-emails-wont-bias-UN-global-warning-body-says-chairman.html

PSU investigates ‘Climategate’
Laura Nichols
Collegian Staff Writer
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/11/30/psu_investigates_climategate.aspx

Climategate – The Introduction
http://climateclinic.com/html/introduction.html
Climategate – Part I
By: Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time. Attributed to Abraham Lincoln
On November 20, 2009, an individual or individuals published a file on the Internet containing thousands of emails and other information. But this wasn’t just any old file: this file contained reams of confidential information flowing back and forth between the Hadley Climate Research Unit (HadCru) at the University of East Anglia in Britain, and a small cadre of “elitists” who were promoting the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) agenda throughout the world.
As word leaked out that HadCru’s servers had been compromised and sensitive information placed on the Internet, the silence outside the “skeptic” community was deafening! But within the “skeptic” community, thousands of scientists, researchers, and others salivated at the very thought of what may await them. Ad hoc task forces quickly formed, saved the files to their desktops, and began digging into the mountain of information. What unfolded was stunning, to say the least.
The emails contained ultra-sensitive information on how a small group had been manipulating the AGW issue with false and misleading information; had been systematically blackballing “skeptics” from publishing in peer reviewed journals; had been hiding and even destroying data that didn’t mesh with their pre-conceived opinions and agenda, and had been viciously demonizing all who got in their way.
Reviewers of the now “not-so-confidential” emails began publishing their damming contents on “skeptic” websites throughout the world. Media independents, such as the Fox News Channel, Investors Business Daily, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Times started taking notice and began tracking the issue. The so-called “Main Stream Media” (MSM) took a pass and remained silent.
It wasn’t long however, before the MSM had to take their heads out of the sand and begin addressing the issue. But for the most part, the MSM articles downplayed the importance of the revelations and instead, condemned the hacker who caused all the problems. But was it a hacker? More to come on this later!
One of Europe’s best known and highly respected enviros – George Moribot – had this to say about the rapidly unfolding disclosures:
It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.
Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request. Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed. (Editor’s note: Dr. Phil Jones Is head of the now infamous HadCru)
NPR weighed in on what now has now been dubbed “Climategate” by adding:
“… a group of scientists who support the consensus view of climate change have been working together to influence what gets published in science journals.
Journals are supposed to be impartial filters that let good ideas rise to the top and bad ideas sink to the bottom. But the stolen e-mails show that a group of scientists has decided that’s not working well enough. So they have resorted to strong tactics — including possible boycotts — to keep any paper they think is dubious from reaching the pages of a journal.”
Not to be outdone, a “Climategate” article appearing in the New York Times included a quote by Judith Curry (Chair, School of Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology) as saying: “This whole concept of, ‘We’re the experts, trust us’ has clearly gone by the wayside with these e-mails.”
But that’s only the tip of the iceberg!
Given the fact thousands of scientists and researchers have signed petitions, letters, and other documents challenging the AGW theory, the so-called “consensus” has always been suspect. The emails suggest many scientists were browbeaten into “going along to get along” or threatened with the dire consequence of not getting published in scientific journals. And not getting published can mean the end to one’s career. Others simply fell in line.
The emails flowing back and forth between this small cadre of “elitists” also dealt with methods of marginalizing and demonizing skeptical scientists, manipulating what gets published, and advocating the destruction of data.
The emails also encouraged members of that small group to form a solid front against those challenging their assertions, regardless if those assertions were accurate or not. But while creating a solid front may work in politics, it doesn’t work in science. Science relies on others challenging each hypothesis in an effort to prove or disprove it. This is part of what’s called the “Scientific Method.” The “Scientific Method” also mandates replication, that is, the ability of an outside peer reviewer to duplicate the experiment(s) supporting the originator’s hypothesis. If the experiment can’t be duplicated, the hypothesis is “falsified” and returned to the originator.
But this zealot group of AGW promoters bastardized the “Scientific Method” by refusing to allow “outsiders” to see their papers and instead, reviewed and approved each other’s. Can you imagine how fantastic your college grades would have been if the professor allowed small groups of classmates to correct and grade each others’ papers?
As far as the promoters’ programmed computer models and the “Scientific Method” are concerned, meteorologist and researcher Anthony Watts had this to say:
The same holds true for computer models. This 2006 paper by Rand and Wilensky of Northwestern University: Verification and Validation through Replication: A Case Study Using Axelrod and Hammond’s Ethnocentrism Model (PDF) illustrates clearly the need for replication when it comes to models, something climate science is lacking in when the data and code is not made available to independent researchers.
Outrageously, this rogue band of elitists also refused “outsiders” the ability to review their computer code… and the emails showed why: programmer’s notes revealed how the computer models were rigged to show trends favoring the AGW hoax, and to hide or delete trends showing temperature declines!
So who are these “elitists,” what was their motivation, and how did they almost get away with their AGW scheme and bankrupt the industrialized world in the process?
Developing… more to come!

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/4731#more-4731

Here is a story Fox just broke at least on their website:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,577827,00.html
here is an except from the document that Fox found:
“The environment should compete with religion as the only compelling, value-based narrative available to humanity. To do that, however, it will have to make itself relevant well beyond the world of those already
concerned with the environment, including very prominently its own formal constituency. Indeed, unless UNEP succeeds in recasting the debate, it is
highly likely that the economic community will do it—badly, and on its own terms. It is already happening in the field of climate change.”
Earlier in the document they decry that it is a travesty that UNEP doesn’t have the control over the IPCC that they wish they did.

Climategate Scandal Heats Up, As Researcher “Accidentally” Deleted Data
Graham Winfrey
Nov. 30, 2009, 1:48 PM
It would appear that the Climategate scandal, the hacked emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the U.K. revealing that scientists distorted climate change data, is not going to cool off anytime soon.
Climate change skeptics are fired up about the “accidental” deletion of temperature data by head of the CRU Phil Jones and the bogus data aggregation procedure used by scientists that “renders the [temperature readings] totally meaningless,” but what gets some people’s goats the most is the fact that the University of East Anglia is still denying that there was any wrong doing.
http://www.businessinsider.com/climategate-scandal-keeps-heating-up-2009-11
[Quotes from Washington Times article below*]
EDITORIAL: The global-cooling cover-up
Climate-change researchers admit their data is ‘garbage’
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The climate-gate revelations have exposed an unprecedented coordinated attempt by academics to distort research for political ends. Anyone interested in accurate science should be appalled at the manipulation of data “to hide the decline [in temperature]” and deletion of e-mail exchanges and data so as not to reveal information that would support global-warming skeptics. These hacks are not just guilty of bad science. In the United Kingdom, deleting e-mail messages to prevent their disclosure from a Freedom of Information Act request is a crime.
The story has gotten worse since the global-cooling cover-up was exposed through a treasure trove of leaked e-mails a week ago. The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia has been incredibly influential in the global-warming debate. The CRU claims the world’s largest temperature data set, and its research and mathematical models form the basis of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2007 report.
. . .
*We read and reread these CRU documents in stunned amazement. But rather than investigating all the evidence of so much academic fraud and intellectual wrongdoing, the University of East Anglia is denying there is a problem. Professor Trevor Davies, the school’s pro vice chancellor for research, issued a defensive statement on Tuesday claiming: “The publication of a selection of the emails and data stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has led to some questioning of the climate science research published by CRU and others. There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation.”
Unlike these global-warming propagandists, we expect research to be done in the open. Scientists who refuse to share their data, who plot to destroy information and fail to tell other scientists how their results were calculated should be severely punished.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/27/the-global-cooling-cover-up/
—–
Seems ClimateGate, the ‘The global-cooling cover-up’, may gain some traction prior to Copenhagen.

http://video.foxnews.com/11937685/the-one-thing-1125#/12083845/settled-science/?category_id=949437d0db05ed5f5b9954dc049d70b0c12f2749

Hey, has anyone contacted Al Gore? I’m sure he could explain this. If we could just stay awake while he droned on.

Professor Don Easterbrook left this comment on the ABC news site.
I’ve spent 4 decades studying global climate change and as a scientist I am appalled at Krugman’s cavalier shrugging off the Hadley email scandal as ‘just the way scientists talk among themselves.’
That’s like saying it’s alright for politicians to be corrupt because that’s the way they are.
Legitimate scientists do not doctor data, delete data they don’t like, hide data they don’t want seen, hijack the peer review process, personally attack other scientists whose views differ from theirs, send fraudulent data to the IPCC that is used to perpetuate the greatest hoax in the history science, provide false data to further legislation on climate change that will result in huge profits for corrupt lobbyists and politicians, and tell outright lies about scientific data.
Posted by: Don Easterbrook | Nov 29, 2009 1:57:05 PM
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/11/global-warming-partisan-divide.html