Former US Presidents Explain Climategate, page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 60 times

Topic started on 8-12-2009 @ 07:58 AM by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

In this video, Eisenhower & JFK expose the undeclared war, by the 'communist' 'technological elite', while the others admit that the agenda is a UN 'New World Order'. Obama, along with a few other key world heads of state (Canada, Russia, EU) are also included in the end-climax segment confirming the 'ideals' of their related contemporaries.

(click to open player in new window)

Climategate emails & source code citations:

FOIA

1212063122
Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re (IPCC)? Keith will do likewise. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?
1228330629
When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one at a screen, to convince them otherwise…
1228330629
I’ve got to know the FOI person quite well and the Chief Librarian – who deals with appeals. The VC is also aware of what is going on
1228330629
At present, I’m damned and publicly vilified because I refused to provide McIntyre with the data he requested.
1228330629
had I acceded to McIntyre’s initial request for climate model data, …I would have spent years of my scientific career dealing with demands for further explanations
1252164302
Please write all emails as though they will be made public.
1210367056
Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written … We think we’ve found a way around this.
1107454306
If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.
1107454306
And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them.
1109021312
I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !

IPCC

1177890796
I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not always the same.
1256735067
As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations,

PEERS

1089318616
I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!
1237496573
I’m having a dispute with the new editor of Weather. I’ve complained about him to the RMS Chief Exec. If I don’t get him to back down, I won’t be sending any more papers to any RMS journals and I’ll be resigning from the RMS.
1047388489
I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.
1047388489
I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.
1051190249
One approach is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their journal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation under the guise of refereed work.
1051190249
I use the word ‘perceived’ here, since whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about — it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts.
1106322460
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.

HIDE THE DECLINE

1054736277
it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back…
1256747199
Keith succeeding in being very restrained in his response. McIntyre knew what he was doing when he replaced some of the trees with those from another site.
843161829
I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that.
843161829
I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have
1255352257
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.
1255352257
Our observing system is inadequate.
942777075
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.
1257546975
Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.
826209667
Also, it is important for us if you can transfer the ADVANCE money on the personal accounts which will not be more than 10,000 USD. Only in this case we can avoid big taxes and use money for our work as much as possible.
1252164302
We cherry-picked the tree-ring series in Eurasia.
938018124
everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that this was (cooling trend) a problem and a potential distraction / detraction from the reasonably concensus viewpoint we’d like to show
938018124
I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago.
1255523796
The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not!
1120593115
I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences.

CODE

mann/abdlowfreq2grid
;Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

recon_esper.pro
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline

recon_esper.pro
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1940 to avoid
; the decline

briff_sep98_e.pro
;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********

frs_gts_anom.PRO
; calculate 1961-1990 synthetic normal from adjusted tmn
print

abdlowfreq2grid
; the corrected
; version has already been artificially adjusted to reproduce the largest
; scales of observed temperature over recent decades

mxd_pcr_localtemp
; coverage). *BUT* don’t do special PCR for the modern period (post-1976),
; since they won’t be used due to the decline/correction problem.

hovmueller_lon
;Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
calibrate_correctmxd
; We have identified and
; artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline in this calibrated
; data set.

osborn-tree6/briffa_sep98_d.pro):
;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;

[edit on 8-12-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

reply posted on 8-12-2009 @ 08:09 AM by endisnighe

Yes, I believe these statements must have been taken out of context. /s

Star and flag.

reply posted on 8-12-2009 @ 08:25 AM by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Thanks, but out of context? As I sensing some sarcasm here?

reply posted on 8-12-2009 @ 08:41 AM by mister.old.school

I'd like to point out that the illegally-obtained private emails (and other data) that comprise "climate gate" do not disprove the rather obvious scientific fact that the earth is currently experiencing an overall warming trend.

The only evidentiary aspect of these communications are related to the possible unethical behavior of some of the scientists seeking to establish a connection with man's contribution to the warming of the planet.

The warming is indeed happening, and a collection of unethical scientists do not diminish the need to be concerned about the potential societal harm posed by the evolution of the planet's ecosystem.

reply posted on 8-12-2009 @ 08:48 AM by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

reply to post by mister.old.school

Hey! I've always respected you. But I'll argue that not only does the Climategate archive appear to be a leak, but that also warming has been over exaggerated, at best...

Leak:
wattsupwiththat.com...

Warming?:

Not only is the surface record sketchy and unreliable:
www.surfacestations.org... (for starters)
Even the sketchy NASA data shows yet WHAT warming?:
earthobservatory.nasa.gov...
The (even remotely) accurate temperature record began in 1980:
upload.wikimedia.org...

[edit on 8-12-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

reply posted on 8-12-2009 @ 08:55 AM by mister.old.school

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
warming has been over exaggerated, at best...

I agree there have been exaggerations; but on both sides of this highly-charged politicized issue.

It's unfortunate that intensely hateful partisan politics has intruded upon a subject for which no such influence should occur. There should be no surprise that scientists who rely on funding to retain their departments and positions should exaggerate or even lie under such circumstances.

In the end, we know the planet naturally experiences warming and cooling trends. The bulk of the untainted data points to the probability that we are experiencing a warming trend. Our contribution remains in doubt.

reply posted on 8-12-2009 @ 08:58 AM by Springer

There's a reason the "polyscientists" changed the name of their propaganda machine to Climate Change from Global Warming...

Springer...

reply posted on 8-12-2009 @ 08:58 AM by Mattehinthebox

The warming is indeed happening, and a collection of unethical scientists do not diminish the need to be concerned about the potential societal harm posed by the evolution of the planet's ecosystem.

It is because you so-heatedly sound convicted of it! However, to reality that you seem to be missing is that in climategate they literally mention "Hide the decline." To me the sounds a lot like their junk science isn't even proving warming any longer. Why do you think they call it climate change instead of global warming now? The REAL science and facts show that were actually COOLING now and heading into a COOLING phase.

On top of that, some of the main names in "Climate change" said 30-40 years we were heading into something similar to an ice age.

reply posted on 8-12-2009 @ 09:13 AM by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

In any case, amidst this project I've been swept by this feeling of defeat of everythingI grew up on:

For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

You see we were taught that we wont the Cold War, just a decade or so ago. But now it seems that the Communists have won, or are on the verge of winning, on the global scale. I'm sorry, but JFK's own words to me have more meaning today than yesterday. I cant imagine that the US media publishers were already covering up the effectiveness of the Communist imperialists, 50 years ago, were they?

[edit on 8-12-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

reply posted on 8-12-2009 @ 09:18 AM by kettlebellysmith

reply to post by mister.old.school

I must respectfully disagree. A collection of unethical scientists puts all the data and all of the conclusions that have been reached by more ethical investigators. When someone is exploring something like climate change, the work is not performed in a vacum. The data I obtain will be compared with the data of others. If the data of others is false, then my conclusions most likely will be incorrect. The solutions implemented based on these faulty assumptions could could create even larger problems.
If we have to much CO2 then perhaps we should plant more trees. I am not being facetious. That could, quite possibly, be the simplest and cheapest solution.

reply posted on 8-12-2009 @ 09:18 AM by Mattehinthebox

I would think those in charge probably had an overwhelming hand in the production of television and stuff. So I'm pretty sure they've had their puppet strings rapped around it all for quite sometime.

reply posted on 8-12-2009 @ 09:34 AM by Unnoan

What? the weather changes? the climate fluctuates? shocking. Dense human populations and industries comprise what percentage of the earth's surface? 8% at the most? How big is the earth's atmosphere when compared to the exhaust belching factories, if any exist in the USA at all anymore? If the earth is warming, I am blaming the whales since oceans are 70% and would have a much great effect on the weather...erm climate.

What's next after global warming? we already did the population explosion scare, the nukes scare, the famine scare, I think we need an asteroid or comet to worry about. Add to the list of other things humans have adapted to over the ages.

oh and I am still waiting for those sea levels to rise. been waiting some 20 years now... and no I am not talking about fractions of an inch a year...

reply posted on 8-12-2009 @ 09:59 AM by DataWraith

I like the way these 'emails' were classed as leaked, then lost then stolen, to cover up and make the fear factor even more apparent, to show the public that any questions that shouldn't be asked are made to look like illegal action. Welcome to the free and just world of today.

reply posted on 8-12-2009 @ 10:08 AM by schrodingers dog

Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
reply to post by mister.old.school

I must respectfully disagree. A collection of unethical scientists puts all the data and all of the conclusions that have been reached by more ethical investigators

Not really ... if a scientist uses false data to establish that the sun will rise tomorrow it doesn't mean that it won't. It just means that the scientist, for a reason that must be determined, should be excluded. Anything else is but false logic and twisted causality.

[edit on 8 Dec 2009 by schrodingers dog]

reply posted on 8-12-2009 @ 10:08 AM by Tomb_Raven

well in this particular case climate change isnt the issue... we all know thats happening, thats hoplessly blatantly obvious.

Whats wrong here is that we are going to have a political body with the power to tax countries and people for something that their scientists are lying about. And that is plain wrong.

Pollution is bad, we know that, you dont sh*t in the room you eat in. But you dont walk into a toilet and eat a sandwitch while someone is squatting and tell them to go somewhere else either.

we should be looking out for the environment, by all means... but we shouldnt be conning people out of money on false claims. We shouldnt be stopping developing countries from developing by limiting them to inferior forms of energy production.

if you ask me its one big con and environmentalist cult.

video.google.co.uk...#

~TR

reply posted on 8-12-2009 @ 10:15 AM by mister.old.school

Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
I must respectfully disagree. A collection of unethical scientists puts all the data and all of the conclusions that have been reached by more ethical investigators.

I don't disagree what that statement. However, conclusions and data are two different things: one may be biased, the other may be not.

We know the climate is changing. The probability that man's emissions played some role is plausible, but to what extent we can now be uncertain due to the ethical issues now plaguing the the debate. In all likelihood our overall impact was as minor as the thermal impact of a cigarette lighter in a hot room.

The larger issue, being lost in the near-religious fervor, is what must society do to sustain itself during the coming change in climate conditions -- or if anything needs to be done at all.

reply posted on 8-12-2009 @ 10:25 AM by endisnighe

reply to post by mister.old.school

Okay old school, than do you agree with the carbon credit charade. I know a lot of people like you that are very straight forward and articulate are saying that the science is not in but can you give us your position of the CO2 protocols being implemented.

This is why a lot of us are hammering this now.

If instituting this is going to play havoc with the world's economy and especially future food production, how can we as a people implement something that is going to cause the world's starving populous to only increase?

reply posted on 8-12-2009 @ 10:33 AM by mister.old.school

reply to post by endisnighe

It's my belief that "carbon credits" and "carbon taxes" are nothing more than profit seeking attempts from corporations and governments seeking to capitalize on over-stated climate-change fears.

Is that clear enough?

reply posted on 8-12-2009 @ 11:04 AM by endisnighe

reply to post by mister.old.school

Thank you, clear a crystal.

reply posted on 8-12-2009 @ 11:17 AM by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by mister.old.school
I'd like to point out that the illegally-obtained private emails (and other data) that comprise "climate gate" do not disprove the rather obvious scientific fact that the earth is currently experiencing an overall warming trend.

The only evidentiary aspect of these communications are related to the possible unethical behavior of some of the scientists seeking to establish a connection with man's contribution to the warming of the planet.

The warming is indeed happening, and a collection of unethical scientists do not diminish the need to be concerned about the potential societal harm posed by the evolution of the planet's ecosystem.

Wow, you got stars for that absurd tripe??? Yes, you are correct in pointing out the obvious... the Earth IS warming. Yet you are cherry picking, you failed to mention that other planets are warming as well, even Pluto.

Do you guys ever for a second consider the possibility that the SUN may be the culprit and not SUVs???????