Climategate: White House Involvement in Scandal Will Make It Harder for MSM to Ignore — Inhofe Launches “Climategate” Investigation — Hide The Decline Video — CRU’s Source Code: Climategate Uncovered — Rush: 3 Trees Said to Prove Warming! — Polar Bear Commercial (Video) — Note: All Charts Below From IPCC WG1 AR4 Report (See Summary For Policymakers – PDF)
News Busters – By P.J. Gladnick
Yesterday Brian Williams delivered an NBC Nightly News report about President Obama attending the Copenhagen global warming summit. Guess what hot topic was left untouched? If you had guessed Climategate you would have been correct. Not only Williams but also the other TV networks, with the exception of FOX News, have completely ignored what is considered to be the biggest scientific scandal in history. However, new Climategate revelations made by the Canada Free Press about a White House connection to the scandal will soon make it much more difficult (and ridiculous) for the networks to ignore.
Canada Free Press editor Judi McLeod and Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball reveal the involvement of White House Science Czar John Holdren (photo) in the Climategate Scandal. The picture presented of Holdren is not a pretty one:
Lift up a rock and another snake comes slithering out from the ongoing University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) scandal, now riding as “Climategate”.
Obama Science Czar John Holdren is directly involved in CRU’s unfolding Climategate scandal. In fact, according to files released by a CEU hacker or whistleblower, Holdren is involved in what Canada Free Press (CFP) columnist Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball terms “a truculent and nasty manner that provides a brief demonstration of his lack of understanding, commitment on faith and willingness to ridicule and bully people”.
An example of Holdren’s nastiness from the CRU files involves the ridicule solar physicists Sally Baliunas and Willie Soon. Here is Dr. Ball’s description of what happened:
I’ve known solar physicists Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon for a long time. I’ve published articles with Willie and enjoyed extensive communication. I was on advisory committees with them when Sallie suddenly and politely withdrew from the fray. I don’t know if the following events were contributing factors but it is likely.
Baliunas and Soon were authors of excellent work confirming the existence of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) from a multitude of sources. Their work challenged attempts to get rid of the MWP because it contradicted the claim by the proponents of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Several scientists challenged the claim that the latter part of the 20th century was the warmest ever. They knew the claim was false, many warmer periods occurred in the past. Michael Mann ‘got rid’ of the MWP with his production of the hockey stick, but Soon and Baliunas were problematic. What better than have a powerful academic destroy their credibility for you? Sadly, there are always people who will do the dirty work.
Such as a certain person destined to become a White House Science Czar? Dr. Ball elaborates:
Indeed, Holdren’s emails show how sincere scientists would be made into raw “entertainment”.
On 16th October 2003 Michael Mann, infamous for his lead in the ‘hockey stick’ that dominated the 2001 IPCC Report, sent an email to people involved in the CRU scandal:
Thought you would be interested in this exchange, which John Holdren of Harvard has been kind enough to pass along…
At the time Holdren was Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy & Director, Program in Science, Technology, & Public Policy, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
In an email on October16, 2003 from John Holdren to Michael Mann and Tom Wigley we are told:
I’m forwarding for your entertainment an exchange that followed from my being quoted in the Harvard Crimson to the effect that you and your colleagues are right and my “Harvard” colleagues Soon and Baliunas are wrong about what the evidence shows concerning surface temperatures over the past millennium. The cover note to faculty and postdocs in a regular Wednesday breakfast discussion group on environmental science and public policy in Harvard’s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences is more or less self-explanatory.
This is what Holdren sent to the Wednesday Breakfast group:
I append here an e-mail correspondence I have engaged in over the past few days trying to educate a Soon/Baliunas supporter who originally wrote to me asking how I could think that Soon and Baliunas are wrong and Mann et al. are right (a view attributed to me, correctly, in the Harvard Crimson). This individual apparently runs a web site on which he had been touting the Soon/Baliunas position.
The exchange Holdren refers to is a challenge by Nick Schulz editor of Tech Central Station (TCS). On August 9, 2003 Schulz wrote:
In a recent Crimson story on the work of Soon and Baliunas, who have written for my website [1 techcentralstation.com, you are quoted as saying: My impression is that the critics are right. It s unfortunate that so much attention is paid to a flawed analysis, but that’s what happens when something happens to support the political climate in Washington. Do you feel the same way about the work of Mann et. al.? If not why not?
Holdren provides lengthy responses on October 13, 14, and 16 but comments fail to answer Schulz’s questions. After the first response Schulz replies:
I guess my problem concerns what lawyers call the burden of proof. The burden weighs heavily, much more heavily, given the claims on Mann et.al. than it does on Soon/Baliunas. Would you agree?
Of course, Holdren doesn’t agree. He replies:
But, in practice, burden of proof is an evolving thing-it evolves as the amount of evidence relevant to a particular proposition grows.
Dr. Ball elaborates on this “evolving burden of proof” argument by Holdren:
No it doesn’t evolve; it is either on one side or the other. This argument is in line with what has happened with AGW. He then demonstrates his lack of understanding of science and climate science by opting for Mann and his hockey stick over Soon and Baliunas. His entire defense and position devolves to a political position. His attempt to belittle Soon and Baliunas in front of colleagues is a measure of the man’s blindness and political opportunism that pervades everything he says or does.
Schulz provides a solid summary when he writes:
I’ll close by saying I’m willing to admit that, as someone lacking a PhD, I could be punching above my weight. But I will ask you a different but related question. How much hope is there for reaching reasonable public policy decisions that affect the lives of millions if the science upon which those decisions must be made is said to be by definition beyond the reach of those people?
Dr. Ball concludes with this devastating appraisal of John Holdren:
We now know it was deliberately placed beyond the reach of the people by the group that he used to ridicule Soon and Baliunas. Holdren was blinded by his political views, which as his record shows are frightening. One web site synthesizes his position on over-population as follows, “Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A “Planetary Regime” with the power of life and death over American citizens.
Holdren has a long history of seeking total government control. He was involved in the Club of Rome providing Paul Ehrlich with the scientific data in his bet with Julian Simon. Ehrlich lost the bet. Holdren’s behavior in this sorry episode with Soon and Baliunas is too true to form and shows the leopard never changes his spots.
Keep in mind that Holdren as the White House Science Czar has direct input to President Obama on the subject of global warming. Perhaps he will even accompany Obama to the Copenhagen summit. Will anybody in the MSM dare to ask Obama about the Climategate revelations of data manipulations and suppression of contrary views as well as the involvement of his own Science Czar in this scandal?
A cookie! An oatmeal cookie to the first reporter to dare ask Obama a question about Climategate!
And for Brian Williams, a Five Guys burger (with fries) for asking the same question.
Warns Participants to Retain Documents
Washington, D.C. Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, today sent letters to several scientists, some of whom allegedly manipulated data to prove the scientific “consensus” of global warming, as well as to the inspectors general of several federal agencies, notifying them to retain documents related to the release of emails from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit in England.
“The stakes in this controversy are significant, as it appears that the basis of federal programs, pending EPA rulemakings, and cap-and-trade legislation was contrived and fabricated,” Sen. Inhofe said. “Moreover, it appears that, in an attempt to conceal the manipulation of climate data, information disclosure laws may have been violated.
“I certainly don’t condone the manner in which these emails were released; however, now that they are in the public domain, lawmakers have an obligation to determine the extent to which the so-called ‘consensus’ of global warming, formed with billions of taxpayer dollars, was contrived in the biased minds of the world’s leading climate scientists.”
The letters are the first step in the investigation of the climate scandal. Last week, emails released by a computer hacker revealed that several leading climate scientists allegedly manipulated climate data and research used by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These scientists also appear to have refused outside access to their raw data, obstructed freedom of information requests, and plotted ways to prevent the publication of papers in peer-reviewed journals by scientists who question global warming alarmism…
It is more than three years since the drafting of text was completed for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). In the meantime, many hundreds of papers have been published on a suite of topics related to human-induced climate change.
The purpose of this report is to synthesize the most policy-relevant climate science published since the close-off of material for the last IPCC report. The rationale is two-fold.
First, this report serves as an interim evaluation of the evolving science midway through an IPCC cycle – IPCC AR5 is not due for completion until 2013.
Second, and most important, the report serves as a handbook of science updates that supplements the IPCC AR4 in time for Copenhagen in December 2009, and any national or international climate change policy negotiations that follow.
This report covers the range of topics evaluated by Working Group I of the IPCC, namely the Physical Science Basis. This includes:
- an analysis of greenhouse gas emissions and their atmospheric concentrations, as well as the global carbon cycle;
- coverage of the atmosphere, the land-surface, the oceans, and all of the major components of the cryosphere (land-ice, glaciers, ice shelves, sea-ice and permafrost);
- paleoclimate, extreme events, sea level, future projections, abrupt change and tipping points;
- separate boxes devoted to explaining some of the common misconceptions surrounding climate change science.
The report has been purposefully written with a target readership of policy-makers, stakeholders, the media and the broader public. Each section begins with a set of key points that summarises the main findings. The science contained in the report is based on the most credible and significant peer-reviewed literature available at the time of publication. The authors primarily comprise previous IPCC lead authors familiar with the rigor and completeness required for a scientific assessment of this nature.
The most significant recent climate change findings are:
Surging greenhouse gas emissions: Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 were nearly 40% higher than those in 1990. Even if global emission rates are stabilized at present –day levels, just 20 more years of emissions would give a 25% probability that warming exceeds 2oC. Even with zero emissions after 2030. Every year of delayed action increase the chances of exceeding 2oC warming.
Recent global temperatures demonstrate human-based warming: Over the past 25 years temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.190C per decade, in every good agreement with predictions based on greenhouse gas increases. Even over the past ten years, despite a decrease in solar forcing, the trend continues to be one of warming. Natural, short- term fluctuations are occurring as usual but there have been no significant changes in the underlying warming trend.
Acceleration of melting of ice-sheets, glaciers and ice-caps: A wide array of satellite and ice measurements now demonstrate beyond doubt that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets are losing mass at an increasing rate. Melting of glaciers and ice-caps in other parts of the world has also accelerated since 1990.
Rapid Arctic sea-ice decline: Summer-time melting of Arctic sea-ice has accelerated far beyond the expectations of climate models. This area of sea-ice melt during 2007-2009 was about 40% greater than the average prediction from IPCC AR4 climate models.
Current sea-level rise underestimates: Satellites show great global average sea-level rise (3.4 mm/yr over the past 15 years) to be 80% above past IPCC predictions. This acceleration in sea-level rise is consistent with a doubling in contribution from melting of glaciers, ice caps and the Greenland and West-Antarctic ice-sheets.
Sea-level prediction revised: By 2100, global sea-level is likely to rise at least twice as much as projected by Working Group 1 of the IPCC AR4, for unmitigated emissions it may well exceed 1 meter. The upper limit has been estimated as – 2 meters sea-level rise by 2100. Sea-level will continue to rise for centuries after global temperature have been stabilized and several meters of sea level rise must be expected over the next few centuries.
Delay in action risks irreversible damage: Several vulnerable elements in the climate system (e.g. continental ice-sheets. Amazon rainforest, West African monsoon and others) could be pushed towards abrupt or irreversible change if warming continues in a business-as-usual way throughout this century. The risk of transgressing critical thresholds (“tipping points”) increase strongly with ongoing climate change. Thus waiting for higher levels of scientific certainty could mean that some tipping points will be crossed before they are recognized.
The turning point must come soon: If global warming is to be limited to a maximum of 2oC above pre-industrial values, global emissions need to peak between 2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly. To stabilize climate, a decarbonized global society – with near-zero emissions of CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases – need to be reached well within this century. More specifically, the average annual per-capita emissions will have to shrink to well under 1 metric ton CO2 by 2050. This is 80-90% below the per-capita emissions in developed nations in 2000.
Executive Summary – English: PDF (166 KB)
Full report: High resolution PDF (23.3 MB)
Full report: Low resolution PDF (3.3 MB)
Read report online: Flip book
American Thinker – By Marc Sheppard
As the evidence of fraud at the University of East Anglia’s prestigious Climactic Research Unit (CRU) continues to mount, those who’ve been caught green-handed continue to parry their due opprobrium and comeuppance, thanks primarily to a dead-silent mainstream media. But should the hubris and duplicity evident in the e-mails of those whose millennial temperature charts literally fuel the warming alarmism movement somehow fail to convince the world of the scam that’s been perpetrated, certainly these revelations of the fraud cooked into the computer programs that create such charts will.
First, let’s briefly review a few pertinent details.
We reported on Saturday that among the most revealing of the “hacked” e-mails released last week was one dated November 1999, in which CRU chief P.D. Jones wrote these words to Hockey-Stick-Team leaders Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes:
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 (sic) from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
Predictably, the suggestion of a climate-related data-adjusting “trick” being employed by such alarmist bellwethers ten years ago instantly raised more than a few eyebrows. And with similar alacrity, the Big Green Scare Machine shifted into CYA gear.
Almost immediately after the news hit on Friday, Jones told Investigative Magazine’s TGIF Edition [PDF] that he “had no idea” what he might have meant by the words “hide the decline” a decade prior:
They’re talking about the instrumental data which is unaltered – but they’re talking about proxy data going further back in time, a thousand years, and it’s just about how you add on the last few years, because when you get proxy data you sample things like tree rings and ice cores, and they don’t always have the last few years. So one way is to add on the instrumental data for the last few years.
Mere hours later, Jones’s warmist soulmates at RealClimate offered an entirely different explanation:
The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the “trick” is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the “decline”, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while “hiding” is probably a poor choice of words (since it is “hidden” in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
And later that day, Jean S. at Climate Audit explained the reality of the quandary. In order to smooth a timed series, it’s necessary to pad it beyond the end-time. But it seems that however hard they tried, when MBH plotted instrumental data against their tree ring reconstructions, no smoothing method would ever undo the fact that after 1960, the tree ring series pointed downward while the instrumental series pointed upward — hence the divergence:
So Mann’s solution [Mike’s Nature Trick] was to use the instrumental record for padding [both], which changes the smoothed series to point upwards.
So the author of the email claimed the “trick” was to add instrumental measurements for years beyond available proxy data, his co-conspirators at Real Climate admitted it was actually a replacement of proxy data due to a known yet inexplicable post-1960 “divergence” anomaly, and CA called it what it was — a cheat.
The next day, the UEA spoke out for the first time on the subject when its first related press-release was posted to its homepage. And Jones demonstrated to the world the benefits a good night’s sleep imparts to one’s memory, though not one’s integrity:
The word “trick” was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward.
Of course, RealClimate also avowed there was “no evidence of the falsifying of data” in the emails. But as Jones chose not to walk back his statement that the “tricks” were rarely exercised, and even assured us that he was “refer[ring] to one diagram — not a scientific paper,” his explanation remained at odds with that of his virtual confederates at RC.
And as Jones must have known at the time, such would prove to be the very least of CRU’s problems.
Getting with the Green Program(s)
One can only imagine the angst suffered daily by the co-conspirators, who knew full well that the “Documents” sub-folder of the CRU FOI2009 file contained more than enough probative program source code to unmask CRU’s phantom methodology.
In fact, there are hundreds of IDL and FORTRAN source files buried in dozens of subordinate sub-folders. And many do properly analyze and chart maximum latewood density (MXD), the growth parameter commonly utilized by CRU scientists as a temperature proxy, from raw or legitimately normalized data. Ah, but many do so much more.
Skimming through the often spaghetti-like code, the number of programs which subject the data to a mixed-bag of transformative and filtering routines is simply staggering. Granted, many of these “alterations” run from benign smoothing algorithms (e.g., omitting rogue outliers) to moderate infilling mechanisms (e.g., estimating missing station data from that of those closely surrounding). But many others fall into the precarious range between highly questionable (removing MXD data which demonstrate poor correlations with local temperature) to downright fraudulent (replacing MXD data entirely with measured data to reverse a disorderly trend-line).
In fact, workarounds for the post-1960 “divergence problem,” as described by both RealClimate and Climate Audit, can be found throughout the source code. So much so that perhaps the most ubiquitous programmer’s comment (REM) I ran across warns that the particular module “Uses ‘corrected’ MXD – but shouldn’t usually plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures.“
What exactly is meant by “corrected” MXD,” you ask? Outstanding question — and the answer appears amorphous from program to program. Indeed, while some employ one or two of the aforementioned “corrections,” others throw everything but the kitchen sink at the raw data prior to output.
For instance, in the subfolder “osborn-tree6mannoldprog,” there’s a program (Calibrate_mxd.pro) that calibrates the MXD data against available local instrumental summer (growing season) temperatures between 1911-1990, then merges that data into a new file. That file is then digested and further modified by another program (Pl_calibmxd1.pro), which creates calibration statistics for the MXD against the stored temperature and “estimates” (infills) figures where such temperature readings were not available. The file created by that program is modified once again by Pl_Decline.pro, which “corrects it” – as described by the author — by “identifying” and “artificially” removing “the decline.”
But oddly enough, the series doesn’t begin its “decline adjustment” in 1960 — the supposed year of the enigmatic “divergence.” In fact, all data between 1930 and 1994 are subject to “correction.”
And such games are by no means unique to the folder attributed to Michael Mann.
A Clear and Present Rearranger
In two other programs, briffa_Sep98_d.pro and briffa_Sep98_e.pro, the “correction” is bolder by far. The programmer (Keith Briffa?) entitled the “adjustment” routine “Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!” And he or she wasn’t kidding. Now IDL is not a native language of mine, but its syntax is similar enough to others I’m familiar with, so please bear with me while I get a tad techie on you.
Here’s the “fudge factor” (notice the brash SOB actually called it that in his REM statement):
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
These two lines of code establish a twenty-element array (yrloc) comprising the year 1400 (base year, but not sure why needed here) and nineteen years between 1904 and 1994 in half-decade increments. Then the corresponding “fudge factor” (from the valadj matrix) is applied to each interval. As you can see, not only are temperatures biased to the upside later in the century (though certainly prior to 1960), but a few mid-century intervals are being biased slightly lower. That, coupled with the post-1930 restatement we encountered earlier, would imply that in addition to an embarrassing false decline experienced with their MXD after 1960 (or earlier), CRU’s “divergence problem” also includes a minor false incline after 1930.
And the former apparently wasn’t a particularly well-guarded secret, although the actual adjustment period remained buried beneath the surface.
Plotting programs such as data4alps.pro print this reminder to the user prior to rendering the chart:
IMPORTANT NOTE: The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set this “decline” has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring density variations, but have been modified to look more like the observed temperatures.
Others, such as mxdgrid2ascii.pro, issue this warning:
NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values will be much closer to observed temperatures then (sic) they should be which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful than it actually is. See Osborn et al. (2004).
Care to offer another explanation, Dr. Jones?
Clamoring alarmists can and will spin this until they’re dizzy. The ever-clueless mainstream media can and will ignore this until it’s forced upon them as front-page news, and then most will join the alarmists on the denial merry-go-round.
But here’s what’s undeniable: If a divergence exists between measured temperatures and those derived from dendrochronological data after (circa) 1960, then discarding only the post-1960 figures is disingenuous, to say the least. The very existence of a divergence betrays a potential serious flaw in the process by which temperatures are reconstructed from tree-ring density. If it’s bogus beyond a set threshold, then any honest man of science would instinctively question its integrity prior to that boundary. And only the lowliest would apply a hack in order to produce a desired result.
And to do so without declaring as such in a footnote on every chart in every report in every study in every book in every classroom on every website that such a corrupt process is relied upon is not just a crime against science, it’s a crime against mankind.
Indeed, miners of the CRU folder have unearthed dozens of e-mail threads and supporting documents revealing much to loathe about this cadre of hucksters and their vile intentions. This veritable goldmine has given us tales ranging from evidence destruction to spitting on the Freedom of Information Act on both sides of the Atlantic. But the now-irrefutable evidence that alarmists have indeed been cooking the data for at least a decade may be the most important strike in human history.
Advocates of the global governance/financial redistribution sought by the United Nations at Copenhagen in two weeks, and also those of the expanded domestic governance/financial redistribution sought by Liberal politicians, both substantiate their drastic proposals with the pending climate emergency predicted in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Kyoto, Waxman-Markey, Kerry-Boxer, EPA regulation of the very substances of life — all bad policy concepts enabled solely by IPCC reports. And the IPCC in turn bases those reports largely on the data and charts provided by the research scientists at CRU — largely from tree ring data — who just happen to be editors and lead authors of that same U.N. panel.
Bottom line: CRU’s evidence is now irrevocably tainted. As such, all assumptions based on that evidence must now be reevaluated and readjudicated. And all policy based on those counterfeit assumptions must also be reexamined.
Gotcha. We know they’ve been lying all along, and now we can prove it. It’s time to bring sanity back to this debate.
It’s time for the First IPCC Reassessment Report.
RUSH: This is posted in Environment, September 29th of this year: “A scientific scandal is casting a shadow over a number of recent peer-reviewed climate papers. At least eight papers purporting to reconstruct the historical temperature record times may need to be revisited, with significant implications for contemporary climate studies, the basis of the [UN’s climate panel] assessments. A number of these involve senior climatologists at the British Climate Research Centre, CRU, at the University of East Anglia. In every case, peer review failed to pick up the errors.
“At issue is the use of tree rings as a temperature proxy… Using statistical techniques, researchers take the ring data to create a ‘reconstruction’ of historical temperature anomalies. But trees are a highly controversial indicator of temperature, since the ridges principally record CO2, and also record humidity, rainfall, nutrient intake, and other local factors… In particular, since 2000, a large number of peer-reviewed climate papers have incorporated data from trees at the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia. This data set gained favor, curiously superseding a new and larger data set from nearby. The older Yamal trees indicated pronounced and dramatic uptick in temperatures.
“How can it be? Scientists have ensured much of the measurement data used in the reconstructions remains a….”
Anyway, they used all of this tree ring data to show that cold medieval times were actually sizzling hot — or maybe the opposite; sizzling hot it was actually very cold, I forget. They used the tree ring data to alter the historical record about temperatures during the Medieval Times to advance their whole notion of man-made global warming. That’s one of the primary focuses. There’s a guy in Canada, and I just mentioned his name. His name is McIntyre. He has been trying for eight years to get this information to find out how they have been jury-rigging and doctoring the data, and he’s been unable to get it. Much of the Yamal tree data was cherry-picked. The implication is clear. So they’re doing everything they can to try to get these documents to find out how these guys at Hadley are coming to their conclusions — and the guys at Hadley, these e-mails back and forth, write, “How can we hide the data? If we have to, we’ll destroy it. A lot of people don’t know there’s a Freedom of Information Act law in Great Britain, and so we don’t want anybody to find that out, so don’t talk about that.” I mean, these guys are clearly — the “scientists” are clearly — conspiring to see to it that their doctored, fraudulent, lying-ass data is not uncovered. Pardon my French, folks. This just burns me. I cannot tell you.
RUSH: Let me make this very simple and understandable about these tree rings. The trees, the Yamal trees in Siberia that formed the basis for revising the 2,000-year-old temperature record, the number of trees used were three. The global warming scientists used the rings of THREE trees, and they cherry-picked those three trees to prove what they wanted to be able to prove, and they ignored other trees which did not establish what they were trying to prove. They took three trees. That’s all they could find. Three trees perpetrated a global warming hoax at every university in this country.
RUSH: Three trees among a forest at the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia! Three trees and their rings were found by these fraud scientists at Hadley, the CRU at East Anglia University to prove the case that they wanted to make. They were manipulating science. They were making it up. They were not reflecting science. They had a political agenda and they faked, doctored, and created — “scientific,” quote, unquote — scientific data to make their case. Meanwhile, all of this garbage science has been accepted as fact by the United Nations climate gurus, this IPCC bunch, the people hosting the Copenhagen deal next month. And the UN’s climate change gurus will not even listen to other scientists who can show how flawed the data is. They will not listen to it.
Here from the final pages of an article in the UK Register: “When the IPCC was alerted to peer-reviewed research that refuted the idea, it declined to include it. This leads to the more general, and more serious issue: what happens when peer-review fails — as it did here? The peer review failed to find that only three trees were cherry-picked and used to prevent lying, false data about warming thousands of years ago on the planet earth. The scandal has only come to light because of the dogged persistence of a Canadian mathematician who attempted to reproduce the results. Steve McIntyre has written dozens of letters requesting the data and methodology, and over 7,000 blog posts. Yet Yamal has remained elusive for almost a decade.” They will not reveal the data that they used to come to their conclusion about ancient medieval temperature changes. This one guy just wants to apply the data they have to the theory so he can see if he can confirm it himself.
They will not allow that to happen, and a lot of these e-mails are about this guy, McIntyre — and a buddy of his named McKitrick — about keeping this information from everybody even if they have to delete it. Meanwhile, the Kyoto protocol and the upcoming meeting in Copenhagen is about carbon trade emissions, cap and tax, get-rid-of-your-SUV, everything! Incandescent lightbulbs being replaced by compact fluorescent! Everything about the environment has been a total fraud and a fake. You do not need to give up your SUV. You do not need to start running around getting washing machines that front load that stink up your house. You don’t have to get rid of your incandescent lightbulbs. You do not have to run around and drive a hybrid to save the earth because there’s nothing you can do to save it if it’s in trouble, which it’s not. We had a call and the guy may be right: This may be as big as proving that the earth was round when the “consensus” of scientists said it was flat. Hell, there still is a Flat Earth Society out there.
I’m sorry to be a one-trick pony today, but this has been — if I can be honest with you, for two decades and even before that… I can remember talking about it when I was in Sacramento in 1984. I remember the show I saw this guy Oppenheimer on, and I said, “We are being scammed.” It was This Week with David Brinkley, “We got 20 years to save the planet! We are warming at an unprecedented rate,” and I remembered just five years earlier the TIME and Newsweek covers were all about global cooling and now all of a sudden we’re warming and we’re heating up. “We’re going to destroy the planet! We only got 20 years,” and Mr. Oppenheimer on that show, on that date in 1984 said, “We can’t prove it yet, but we don’t have time to wait for proof. In case we’re right, we’ve got to start acting now,” and I said, “Whoa! You are a scientist and you can’t prove it?” and he talked about all the things we had to do.
Paul Ehrlich. I was in Pittsburgh for The Population Bomb, and Julian Simon made Ehrlich a bet that everything he predicted about the cost of metals and other commodities would go down as the population grew. And market forces led to demand which brought prices down. Ehrlich lost the bet and he’s still a guru. Julian Simon has since passed away. We’ve posted this on my website over the years. This issue, global warming, has been one of the foundational building blocks for a future world global government. It has been a way for displaced communists to get their hands on the interworkings of the freedom of the United States of America. They have been toying with, polluting, and destroying people’s outlook and minds. They’ve been lying to them and they’ve created and scared to death a bunch of kids over another fraud that the polar bears are dying. There are more polar bears than ever! In fact, little kids have to shoot ’em up there to save themselves. A little 17-year-old shot one the other day. They’re not dying. Nothing about this is true.
It is insidious, and it has been for the express purpose of destroying the free markets of the United States of America and along with it the freedom of the people here, by creating such guilt that people would willingly go along with raising their taxes and having their choice restricted in practically everything involving energy — all to establish dictatorial powers in governments around the world over their people, including in this country. I’m telling you, folks, it has been one of the things that I have been most concerned about. There are many things that irritate me, such as arrogance and conceit in a person’s personality. I can’t stand braggarts; I can’t stand arrogance; I can’t stand conceit, liars, and all that. But the one thing in addition to that that really bugs me is when people in power knowingly lie and manipulate the emotions of good, decent people for the express purpose of negatively altering those people’s lives — and I’m talking about you and your kids and your grandkids — and I’ll be damned if that’s not exactly what’s happening with health care legislation. It’s what’s happening with the stimulus bill.
RUSH: The same people who gave us the global warming hoax are the same kind of people that are now running the United States of America. They’re up on Capitol Hill; they are in the White House. They have polluted the entire bureaucracy and their mission is exactly the same mission as these global warming hoaxers: To lie to you, to make you feel responsible for something that is not happening, to make your kids scared to death. These people should be more than ashamed. They need to be held up to public ridicule. It is simply unconscionable. Look at the audio from the video we had last week of the kids from people who work at the World Wildlife Fund, using their own kids: “Please, Mr. Obama, please go to Copenhagen! The polar bears are dying. The hurricanes are getting more frequent.” Remember that? The hurricanes after Katrina, every year we’re going to have 25 or 26 of them. Ocean temperatures are rising because of global warming! It’s going to be a disaster.
The media camped out on Florida beaches on June 1st when the hurricane season opens looking for the next destructive hurricane. How many did we have this year? Zero! How many did we have last year? Less than five! And I don’t know that all of them made land contact with the United States. How come that’s not critically examined? Gore is Photoshopping pictures of the planet to show four hurricanes at one time — one of them at the equator, which is not meteorologically possible. You cannot have a hurricane at the equator. They have one hurricane spinning in the other direction. In his Photoshop picture in his new book Cuba doesn’t exist; it’s underwater. Florida barely exists. A six thousand-foot sea level rise would be required to submerge Cuba — and if it did, there wouldn’t be a Denver. But Denver is still there. All of this is just flat-out, in-your-face lies — and look who’s getting rich off of it selling the scam of “carbon credits.” Oh, yeah, you’re flying too much on airplanes. So you gotta go out and buy some trees or invest in a company to go plant trees to soak up all the excess carbon that you sinners are polluting the planet with, when in fact you exhale it! It is not deadly!
Finally, the people who have been preaching to us about global warming have been doing so, as the left usually does, from the crisis mode standpoint. “We’ve got 20 years! We got ten years.” Remember Ted Danson in 1988? “Ten years to save the oceans!” Ten years to this; 20 years for that. “We’re killing ourselves. We’re killing the polar bears!” Except it hasn’t warmed in ten years, and now we’ve got the hoax fully exposed. Wouldn’t you think that people genuinely believing in man-made global warming and its destructive results would be happy that it isn’t happening? They’re not. They are distressed and they’re trying to cover up the hoax and they’re going to try to weather the storm — ’cause it isn’t about global warming like health care is not about health care, like cap and tax is not about cap and tax, like Obama is not who he is. They’re all frauds. They are all liars. They are skunks and they ought to be held up for public ridicule.
Obama said he wants to “restore science” to its rightful whatever? Then he ought to be leading the way to find out who these people are, what they’ve done, who they’ve infected, who went along with them — calling them out by name — making sure that every scientist at every university in this country that’s been involved in this is named and fired, drawn and quartered or whatever it is. Because this is a worldwide hoax and its primary target was you, the people of the United States of America. Your freedom and your money. They knew and know the United States is full of decent people. The United States solves the problems of the world. We are not the world’s problem. We solve the problems of the world. Whenever there’s a natural disaster, it’s we who show up. It’s our military. Wherever the world is in trouble it’s the United States that shows up. The world knows that we are a good and decent people — and, in their perverted view, that means that we can be duped with the right appeal. We’re destroying the planet, our progress is. That’s another thing, folks. People said, “I don’t get why you believe in God, Rush. Your belief in God, how does that tell you that global warming is a hoax?”
Well, belief in God is a very personal thing, but I happen to believe in a loving God of creation — and I just intellectually cannot accept the fact that a loving God which has created all this beauty and has blessed this country — I cannot believe that a God like that — would punish the human being he created for progress, for improving the quality of his life. No longer do we have to follow plow mules in the fields. No longer do we have to have kids out milking cows. We have enhanced human life, the life experience, the quality of life, the standard of living. I refuse to believe that a God who created the universe would create creatures who, by virtue of improving their lives and making progress, would destroy another part of His creation.
It just doesn’t compute in a logical sense. If you don’t believe in God, then you probably are a global warmist or a liberal. If you don’t believe in the God of Christianity or the God of Judaism or any other god you have to make some god. There has to be something bigger than you, and so it’s the global warming movement now or it’s health care or it’s Obama or it’s some earthly object that you apply godlike status to. Even atheists believe in something beyond themselves. But the point is they have used and targeted children, scaring them to death with lies. Ted Turner’s been doing it with Captain Planet cartoons, getting kids to hate big business.
The left, my friends, is a truly evil bunch. They know no bounds. They have no compassion. They hide behind illusions that they are the ones who have all the tolerance, yet they are the ones who created political correctness to censor people they didn’t want to have to talk to or hear from or hear about. Political correctness is a hideous way for a population to shut itself up so that there can be no objection to what the left is doing — and the objection is therefore racist, sexist, bigot, homophobic, extremist, or what have you. People don’t want to be called those names, average people going through their lives just trying to get by, especially in an economy like this.
Why run around and create controversy for yourself? So you shut up, and you might whisper to your wife or your husband in the bathroom what you really think is going on but you’re afraid to say it where somebody might hear you because they might report you just like people in a grocery store might report the way you’re not treating your kid right when you’re pushing the cart through the aisles picking up the latest Pop-Tarts. The politically correct spies are everywhere. The left has people out there waiting to get you in line and your mind right, and the people that don’t play along with it are the targets of the left today — and you know the names. Sarah Palin, anybody in talk radio, Fox News. The Universe of Lies understands that the Universe of Truth where we all live.
The Universe of Reality, we are their biggest threat. People who have the truth on their side need to be discredited so the truth is not believed when it’s uttered, and that is what is happening. But, folks, speaking of God: Thanksgiving week. Thanksgiving, the real story, is about thanking God for the bounty and the decision making the first Pilgrims made in organizing themselves after attempts at socialism failed. The true story of Thanksgiving is not the Indians saved ’em. It was about sharing their bounty. Anyway, speaking of God, this just may be a gift from God: This hacker, whoever, however this happened, this whistle-blower illustrating now the total nature of the hoax and the fraud. There is no way in the real world cap and trade has a prayer. Because it, too, is based on this hoax and this lie.
Related Previous Posts:
Musings from the Chiefio: CRUt – fromexcel.f90 program listing
University of East Anglia: Climatic Research Unit update – November 24, 3.30pm
Climate Audit – Mirror Site: Denying Email Deletion
WEBCommentary: James E. Hansen: The “Bernie Madoff” of Climate Science?
The Strata-Sphere: Where Does Global Warming Actually Come From?
Le Monde: Obama Copenhagen enthusiasm measured in the foreign press (English Translation)
Harvard Collection Library (w/Archives): Papers of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Updated Related Links and Added IPCC WG1 AR4 Report Link – end