Friday, November 20, 2009

Global Alarmists caught mucking the works

The main computer over at the United Kingdom's Climate Research Unit in Hadley, England was hacked into and the records released onto the internet. Dr. Phil Jones is a major proponent for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and his reports have been a key part of the IPCC's recommendations to curtail CO2 production.

The file that was dumped onto the internet was large, about 61 megabytes, and so far appears to be legitimate.

As an example:

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.


Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit

Well, it is dirt indeed. Still, it remains that CO2 levels have risen over the past one hundred and fity years, and there is a plausible theory with broad based support that ties the global climate to CO2 levels, whose conclusions predict disastrous consequences for our planet. The proponents of this theory have advanced as a solution the restriction of industrial activities and massive transfers of wealth from the industrialized nations to the third world nations, all overseen by a large bureaucracy managed by the UN. All this, even though it is unlikely that such a program would have any affect on CO2 levels, except perhaps by its ability to strangle economies and decrease industrial activities.

There is no empiric data defining the effect a changing CO2 level has on the climate. We are unsure if CO2 is a weak forcing agent or a negligible forcing agent. We are confident that it is not a strong forcing agent. The basic problems with the situation remain. The difference is that it is now clear the scientists whose theories and measurements we have been relying upon to guide our discussion on policy decisions have not been entirely honest in their presentation of the facts.

That’s a problem.


  1. The problem is this is all a very difficult science to know. We are attempting to reconstruct the past and predict what the future holds on the basis of a single forcing agent of unknown influence, and the methods and basis of understanding are too far removed for the common person to know well enough to be able to enter the discussion. Thus the people and their political leadership depend upon the representations of the facts as submitted by the climatologists. That is why the insertion of politics into this field of science was so dangerous. For such a person to fudge data and shield the studies from the scrutiny of others is utterly unethical. It is taking advantage of the ignorance of others for ones own benefit.

  2. Yeah--we got some "new" ethics here in science, where as wacko Stephen Schneider once said (paraphrasing) it's time to make up scary stories and oversimplify the situation, and that all of us (in the Movement) have to decide the right balance between the truth and EFFECTIVENESS.

    Truer admission not spoken since then.

    One wonders, Nick:

    With all the emphasis that just HAPPENS to be what the international socialists wanted in the way of govenment micromanagement of the economy, that the greens don't go for nuclear power as the rock through the greenhouse window IF this were a true emergency?

    Could it be the handy retort from them is that the "emegency" status of all this warming means they have a virtual green light (so to speak, and pun intended) to FUDGE the data??

    Or, more likely, the data so fudged is not about solving a damned thing, but rather is about CONTROL.

    I noted recently to another blog that it is the suspicion of some that this is just continuation of previous notions that fell flat and need new life in the Marxian notions of internationalist control. What better way these days than to proclaim man himself--or his production--is a threat to the very Ecosphere?

    In the past, the Socialists told us that socialism would outpace and outproduce the West's capitalism and that capitalism would lead us all to the poorhouse.

    The opposite took place, and it was socialism that led people--whole societies--to beggary other than the ruling elite, and to virtual serfdom.

    When their promises of whipping the West fell flat, they now turn to the strategy of telling us that capitalism is evil for another reason entirely.

    Could it be, Nick, that these jackals have finally grown wise enough to comprehend that they can now project into the future their notions of what will happen under advanced Euro-socialism, and seek to soften us up by expecting and thus getting less in the name of Mother Earth?

  3. PS-- I meant to ask you earlier of this claim that Obama actually WILL be sending (quietly) 25,000 extra troops to Afghanistan after all, and that we Neocons and Repubus and conservatives are just being hypocrits--after all, it seems Bush for his part turned DOWN a similar request from the generals earlier before the election in 2008.

    Or is this off base?

    First I've heard of this, but not saying it's false either....

  4. Just to be sure here:

    Keep in mind this is WAY premature.

    I finally got around to reading the whole article beyond the excerpts over coffee a few moments ago:

    Seems that the world "trick" was used colloquically as in "method" of making the data more readable, not necessarily an intentional misrepresentation of the numbers, though at this level that's certainly possible.

    The situation IS now confirmed as real for the hacking part, but as the issue of collusions and misrepresentations?


    J. Patrick Michaels and some others might be calling this a "mushroom cloud" even more than a "smoking gun", but to be honest the evidence of that is looking thin so far.

    As it was explained in the article over at the NYT by the interviewees who plainly admit they got hacked, (paraphrasing from memory) "Newton was an ass, but he was also right", meaning that while some of the email commentary was disparaging of the skeptics, this is not the same as saying the the AGW proponents theories and therefore wrong.