"Global Warming - November 2009 Updates"


Update - November 2, 2009:

National Geographic News - Kilimanjaro's Snows Gone by 2022?

The ice atop Kilimanjaro "continues to diminish right on schedule for disappearing, unfortunately, in the next couple of decades," said glaciologist Lonnie Thompson at Ohio State University in Columbus.

Reminds us of how the sea ice was going to be all gone in 2008.


Update - November 2, 2009:

New Tork Times - Goreís Dual Role: Advocate and Investor

Former Vice President Al Gore thought he had spotted a winner last year when a small California firm sought financing for an energy-saving technology from the venture capital firm where Mr. Gore is a partner.

The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts. Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr. Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years.

It's so nice to be able to advocate for a worldwide change in national policies and be able to make billions off of it. There was a day when such a conflict of interest would have set alarms off in people minds. But the Captain Planet generation just keeps drinking the Kool-Aid.

When you follow the money of the global warming hoax it all becomes quite clear how this scam will rob from the poor and give to the rich.


Update - November 20, 2009:

American Thinker - Scientific scandal appears to rock climate change promoters

(This was published in thousands of blogs and news sites around the world)

There's big news for climate change students. A hacker has gotten into the computers at Hadley CRU, Britain's largest climate research institute and a proponent of global warming, and seems to have uncovered evidence of substantial fraud in reporting the "evidence" on global warming; the unlawful destruction of records to cover up this fraud ,conspiracy, and deceit in the entire operation.

A few sample emails and our translations:

From Phil Jones

Iíve just completed Mikeís Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keithís to hide the decline.

The data doesn't prove our desired result so let's change the data and make it look like it does. After all it's in the name of science and we know what's good for the world. We have to lie because the people out there are fools and might not believe in global warming anymore if they see the truth.

From Michael E. Mann

Dear Phil and Gabi,

Iíve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but donít pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.

We know these models are false and if anyone got hold of it they would see it too. So make sure you never release the code. We wouldn't want anyone to know we're making this all up.

From Nick McKay

The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said. I took a look at the original reference Ė the temperature proxy we looked at is x-ray density, which the author interprets to be inversely related to temperature. We had higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong, unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I donít remember. Darrell, does this sound right to you?

The data doesn't prove our hypothesis so lets change the data to fix that, OK?

From Tom Wigley

We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming ó and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.

We wouldn't' want people to think about any other reasons why things are changing. Let's find a way to cover this up so nobody notices. The only acceptable answer is man made global warming.

From Kevin Trenberth

The fact is that we canít account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we canít. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Our computer models can't predict anything right but we're still going to use them and claim man made global warming is real. Our observation methods are inadequate but we'll pretend they are perfect and there is no doubt in any of our data.

From Michael Mann

Perhaps we'll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page--Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa '06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.

It's not about the truth, we're scientists!

From Phil Jones

The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! ... The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! Cheers Phil

PS Iím getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Donít any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !

If we release our data the world will see how big this fraud is. Fight it in any way you can.

From Michael E. Mann

Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that youíre free to use RC [RealClimate.org - A supposed neutral climate change website] Rein any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and weíll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments youíd like us to include.

Use our official web site to lie and spam. Answer your own questions and post comments agreeing with yourself under different names. That will prove we're legitimate. If anyone posts anything against you we'll make sure it doesn't get posted. After all this is about science not facts.

From Phil Jones

If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.

On no! People are asking for the actual data behind our lies. How dare they question our honesty. Let's find ways to block the requests. The heck with the law regarding freedom of information.

From Phil Jones

Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. Heís not in at the moment Ė minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I donít have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Things are getting hot. Delete emails and destroy evidence that might prove we made it all up.

From Tom Wigley

Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as Iím sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean ó but weíd still have to explain the land blip. Iíve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips ó higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with ďwhy the blipĒ. Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH ó just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols. The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note ó from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not) ó but not really enough. So Ö why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.) This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so Iíd appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have. Tom.

A very detailed way of saying "fudge the data please". The actual real data proves we're wrong.

From Tom Wigley

Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.

One of the faithful sees the lies and the hoax, time to sacrifice him to the global warming god. It doesn't matter if we destroy his life and family. Our religion is the only thing that matters.

From Phil Jones

Gene/Caspar, Good to see these two out. Wahl/Ammann doesn't appear to be in CC's online first, but comes up if you search. You likely know that McIntyre will check this one to make sure it hasn't changed since the IPCC close-off date July 2006! Hard copies of the WG1 report from CUP have arrived here today. Ammann/Wahl - try and change the Received date! Don't give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with.

It's OK to change the dates of documents so they appear to be legitimate and in the right time frame. It doesn't matter what the truth is.

From Mick Kelly

Yeah, it wasnít so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a longer Ė 10 year Ė period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you might expect from La Nina etc. Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also. Anyway, Iíll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as thatís trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.

The data shows cooling and not warming. I'll just modify it and make it show warming in the name of good science.

The response of the global warming crowd to all of this is the same as any politician caught in the lie. It was all taken out of context, you mere mortals are too stupid to understand how we speak. In our world this kind of talk is not lies and data manipulations. You're just not sophisticated enough to understand that even though it looks like we're cooking the books we're not. Really trust us. We're the real scientists, not like those 30,000+ flat earth denier idiot moron scientists who signed Ron Paul's petition denying man made global warming.


Global Warming Charade  - Back to Main Page

Global Warming Lie -December 2008 Update

Global Warming Myth - January 2009 Update

Global Warming Hysteria - February 2009 Update

Global warming conference snowed out - March 2009 Update

Global Warming - the religion - May 2009 Update

Climate change lies and scare tactics - June 2009 Update

Global warming shrinking sheep - July 2009 Update

Global warming a national security issue - August 2009

Global warming scientist acknowledges the truth - September 2009

What happened to Global Warming? - October 2009

Climategate - The lies exposed - November 2009


Al Gore gets caught twisting the truth about global warming

Melting sea ice and the polar bear myth

Global warming and hurricanes

Sunspots and global cooling?


The Chilling Stars: A Cosmic View of Climate Change


 Global Warming and Global Cooling


 Global Warming - Myth or Reality?


 Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years


 Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed


Copyright 2005 - 2009 - candidity.org