[fizzissist]

Nice interview with the guy the ClimateGate people feared.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/envi...-climategate/2

From that interview...

"Spectrum: The e-mail scandal obviously raises basic questions about the culture and ethics of science as it was being practiced at East Anglia, but tell me this: In what you've seen, is there any evidence that the temperature record was seriously distorted, or is there evidence of outright fraud?

JC: When it comes to the record of surface temperatures that Phil Jones led, I don't think it's going to change very much. More serious is the paleoclimate reconstruction from tree rings and so on. Here there was an attempt to give an impression of a time series that the underlying data did not support.

Spectrum: So the temperature record for the past few decades is fairly intact, but the record going back, say, a thousand years may now be open to dispute?

JC: That's right.

.....I have to disagree with Christy, as demonstrated by the NOAA/GISS manipulation of surface station records we're seeing. I'm afraid I don't understand how Christy would not be aware of these "adjustments", especially now.

The Orland and Marysville Stevenson screen records are as smoking as a gun can get if you want proof. If those records had not already been sequestered by Watts, nobody might have been the wiser....but...

The original raw data was downloaded and stored. Then, as if by a miracle, an adjustment was made that had no basis or justification that made earlier temperatures artificially cooler. Watts and others spotted the change and blew the whistle. The obvious result is that later temps will appear to have been increasing at a much higher rate. That kind of adjustment is now found to have been made at stations across the globe. That's what the furor is all about when it comes to surface temps, and why the entire premise of global warming MUST be re-examined.

On top of that, we went from 6000 temp stations to 1000 and went to a gridded format, where the grid cells were some 2400sq km and temps were averaged to adjacent cells if no station existed.

Wouldn't it be nice if you could do QC like that? You've made 1000 parts, done a 100% inspection, put the 30 parts aside that didn't meet spec, re-inspected the remaining 970 parts, declared Zero Defects, then added the 30 parts back in and shipped the order.

When the customer complains that there's bad parts, you tell him that you did a clever trick, and he's taking it all out of context.

[fizzissist]

The link below is an overview of how surface station temps are adjusted. Of particular interest to me is the coincidence that under "Urbanization Effect" they use Reno, Nevada as an example. I used to drive right by that station almost daily since 1983, and never gave it no mind. It disappeared, and I never gave it no mind. What I didn't know, because I didn't care, was that it was moved from the north east corner of Kietzke and Moana (an extremely busy 4-lane intersection..one that has 2 left-turn lanes going each direction), to a location on the south end between the two north-south runways of the Reno Tahoe International Airport.

(that the RNO airport has no international flights, and not even a customs office is food for another issue, along with incompetent management.... don't get me started)

The choice of Reno for the example makes me suspicious, and the adjustment results confirm. The resultant curve doesn't jive with anything. How can I claim that? The difference curve is derived from "10 nearest neighbors".......

This gets into the realm of using apples to adjust the oranges after applying orange standards to the apple's standards

The USHCN Version 2 Serial Monthly Dataset

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/

..............But, back to the Stevenson screens, and why the data is suspect....

http://www.analogsf.com/0911/altview_11.shtml

....and Orland.....
"..Based on this example, it looks like NOAA’s Talking Points comparison is between the overall average and 70 “adjusted” stations – AFTER the good stations have been adjusted."

http://climateaudit.org/2009/06/29/o...w-adjustments/

[Wade]

From that interview...

"Spectrum: The e-mail scandal obviously raises basic questions about the culture and ethics of science as it was being practiced at East Anglia, but tell me this: In what you've seen, is there any evidence that the temperature record was seriously distorted, or is there evidence of outright fraud?

JC: When it comes to the record of surface temperatures that Phil Jones led, I don't think it's going to change very much. More serious is the paleoclimate reconstruction from tree rings and so on. Here there was an attempt to give an impression of a time series that the underlying data did not support.

Spectrum: So the temperature record for the past few decades is fairly intact, but the record going back, say, a thousand years may now be open to dispute?

JC: That's right.

.....I have to disagree with Christy, as demonstrated by the NOAA/GISS manipulation of surface station records we're seeing. I'm afraid I don't understand how Christy would not be aware of these "adjustments", especially now.

The Orland and Marysville Stevenson screen records are as smoking as a gun can get if you want proof. If those records had not already been sequestered by Watts, nobody might have been the wiser....but...

The original raw data was downloaded and stored. Then, as if by a miracle, an adjustment was made that had no basis or justification that made earlier temperatures artificially cooler. Watts and others spotted the change and blew the whistle. The obvious result is that later temps will appear to have been increasing at a much higher rate. That kind of adjustment is now found to have been made at stations across the globe. That's what the furor is all about when it comes to surface temps, and why the entire premise of global warming MUST be re-examined.

On top of that, we went from 6000 temp stations to 1000 and went to a gridded format, where the grid cells were some 2400sq km and temps were averaged to adjacent cells if no station existed.

Wouldn't it be nice if you could do QC like that? You've made 1000 parts, done a 100% inspection, put the 30 parts aside that didn't meet spec, re-inspected the remaining 970 parts, declared Zero Defects, then added the 30 parts back in and shipped the order.

When the customer complains that there's bad parts, you tell him that you did a clever trick, and he's taking it all out of context.

Isn't he saying that correcting the thermometer data will not result in enough change to rock the world, since they will just make excuses. But, correcting the hockey stick, will destroy people like Al Gore. The whole global warming scam started with the hockey stick. It would be like removing the foundation of GW.

[fizzissist]

Letter from National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC) to
the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC)

Jan 8, 2010

"...That decision was certainly questionable in 2008. Today, it is untenable in our view. The unauthorized release in November 2009 of thousands of e-mails containing correspondence among scientists affiliated with the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) makes clear that insurers, regulators, and anyone else with a serious interest in climate change cannot afford the luxury of simply assuming that the “reports and studies” to which the Task Force white paper alludes present an accurate and unbiased picture of what is known about climate change.

The CRU e-mails show that a close-knit group of the world’s most influential climate scientists actively colluded to subvert the peer-review process (and thereby prevent the publication of research by scientists who disagreed with the group’s conclusions about global warming); manufactured pre-determined conclusions through the use of contrived analytic techniques; and discussed destroying data to avoid government freedom-of-information requests..."

http://www.eenews.net/public/25/1379...ment_cw_02.pdf

...Yet, Climategate continues to allude the mainstream media.

[Wade]

Global warming is all about environmentalist and socialist trying to control us, or just take our money.

http://newsmax.com/Newsfront/Expert-...1/22/id/347676

[fizzissist]

If it weren't for the "skeptics", this would have never seen the light of day.

UN climate panel blunders again over Himalayan glaciers

"..Rajendra Pachauri's Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), based in New Delhi, was awarded up to £310,000 by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the lion's share of a £2.5m EU grant funded by European taxpayers.....

..Any suggestion that TERI has repeated an unchecked scientific claim without checking it, in order to win grants, could prove hugely embarrassing for Pachauri and the IPCC."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6999975.ece

Ok...in short....Pachauri heads the IPCC, and TERI. Some guy makes a claim that isn't based on any peer-reviewed science which is grossly inaccurate. IPCC jumps all over it, TERI gets grants as a result of the claims and the credibility of the IPCC. Pachauri benefits financially...
...but get this...

The guy who made the claims, Hasnain, is the head of ....drum roll....the glaciology unit of TERI, who's doing the 'research'. I wonder who'll "peer-review" the papers coming from this...... Jones? Schmidt? Mann?

Cozy? Can you say CONSPIRACY????

[fizzissist]

From that same article...

"...In an interview with The Sunday Times he (Pachauri) said his only income came from his salary at TERI. However TERI does not publish his salary and he refused to divulge it.

In India questions are also being asked about Pachauri's links with GloriOil, a Houston, Texas-based oil technology company that specialises in recovering extra oil from declining oil fields . Pachauri is listed as a founder and scientific advisor.

Critics say it is odd for a man committed to decarbonising energy supplies to be linked to an oil company..."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6999975.ece

So?

GloriOil just happens to get some of it's investment capital from Kleiner Perkins.

So?

Al Gore is a senior partner in Kleiner Perkins.

http://www.kpcb.com/team/index.php?greentech

[fizzissist]

THE PURGE CONTINUES

"There is another important story in involving the Muir-Wood et al. 2006 paper that was misrepresented by the IPCC as showing a linkage between increasing temperatures and rising damages from extreme weather events. The Stern Review Report of the UK government also relied on that paper as the sole basis for its projections of increasing damage from extreme events. In fact as much as 40% of the Stern Reivew projections for the global costs of unmitigated climate change derive from its misuse of the Muir-Wood et al. paper..."

…

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/2...rge-continues/

If you've been following this series of revelations about gov't sites quietly changing posted charts and data, .... and you know who you are.. ...
This is no surprise.

If you aren't aware of how NOAA, NASA, CRU, and others have been very quietly backpeddling by revising without notification or explanation graphs and data, then this is as good a place as any to start.


It's being picked up by the UK press too...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/20/glacier_latest/

[fizzissist]

February 03, 2010


Allison C. LernerInspector General
National Science Foundation
Office of Inspector General
4201 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, VA 22230


Dear Ms. Lerner:


This is a follow-up to my letter of December 2, 2009 and concerns today’s announcement by Penn State University that it has concluded its initial inquiry into possible research misconduct by one of the University’s researchers, Dr. Michael Mann. Penn State’s internal inquiry found further investigation is warranted to determine if Dr. Mann "engaged in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities."



While I firmly agree that Penn State’s investigation is warranted and must commence without delay, there are federal laws and policies implicated in this matter, including your “Research Misconduct” regulations, Title 45 CFR Part 689, that go beyond the scope of Penn State’s inquiry. Therefore, in order to have a full and complete accounting of this matter, I request that you now begin a formal investigation of the allegations against Dr. Mann.

Among other laws and regulations, I ask that you investigate compliance with, or violations of, OMB administrative procedures, 2 CFR Part 215 (OMB Circular A-110), in particular 2 CFR §215.36; Freedom of Information Act 5 U.S.C. §552 (NSF Regulation, 45 CFR Part 612); NSF guidelines implementing OMB information quality guidelines (515 Guidelines); Federal False Claims Act, 18 U.S.C. §287, and 31 U.S.C. §§3729-33; and Federal False Statements Act, 18 U.S.C §1001. Finally, given that Dr. Mann was at the University of Virginia from 1999 until 2005, I also request that you inquire whether his activities at the University of Virginia are implicated in this matter and within your jurisdiction.

Sincerely,

James M. Inhofe

Ranking Member

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

...............If I lied to make a $1000 off of you, and you found out, would you be pissed??

[fizzissist]

"..Similar in effect to the erroneous "2035" claim – the year the IPCC claimed that Himalayan glaciers were going to melt – in this instance we find that the IPCC has wrongly claimed that in some African countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent by 2020.

At best, this is a wild exaggeration, unsupported by any scientific research, referenced only to a report produced by a Canadian advocacy group, written by an obscure Moroccan academic who specialises in carbon trading, citing references which do not support his claims.."

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/201...fricagate.html


Wait till ya read THIS one.

Starting to sound like the IPCC's reports might just have well been written by Rod Serling. At least they'd be more entertaining reading.

[40fordcoupe]

Prof Phil Jones the "scientist" in the center of climate gate has now acknowledged that there has not been any warming in the past 15 years.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...organised.html

Basically the old "The Dog ate my Homework" ploy to explain why he cannot produce the original data.