Climategate scientist cleared
The Academic Board of Inquiry has cleared the scientist at the center of 'Climategate'. So will the spin machine finally pipe down?
Michael E. Mann, Penn State University 
| Previous Post Is algae oil really a clean fuel? | Next Post Sierra Club launches activist network |
Comments
hello,Nice post i really liked it..!!!
[url=http://theoutsourcebot.com]Seo Company[/url]
Three cheers to Michael Mann and to Gary Peters for speaking out.
There are precious few scientists like (Michael Mann and) Professor Emeritus Gary Peters who have chosen not to remain silent but instead to accept their responsibility to science by rigorously examining extant evidence of human population dynamics. Please consider now the perspective of Dr. Peters on the research of Russell Hopfenberg and David Pimentel, which is found in the journal, The California Geographer, 2009..... More
From the medieval Warm Period to about 150 Years ago The Sun was Calming down and There were less sunspots. And for the Past 150 Years Sunspot activity has been increasing, Very Slowly and Subtly increasing the General Temperature of the planet a few degrees at a time melting a little more ice every year, We Don't Need to Pay a Tax of 3000$ on Every child born because of sunspot activity but that's what the corporatocracy wants us to agree to. Yeah Yeah i know, it doesn't make much Sense,.... More
This is like having Colonel Sanders being tapped to investigate the abuse of chickens.
Of course he's "cleared"... the same board of inquiry are the same ones standing to benefit from billions upon billions of research dollars which continue to pour into this scam. One of the highlights of the scam: "Global Warming" scientists all peer-reviewing EACH OTHER, to give themselves the appearance of credibility,
It should be noted, too, that Mann's shenanigans were discovered BEFORE.... More
Of COURSE they are going to clear Mann of any wrong doing because THE GOVERNMENT WANTS THIS FRAUD TO ISSUE A CAP AND TRADE TAX TO FUND THE NEW WORLD ORDER! I wonder how this world will survive with this many dense people in it that buy this complete fraud. Does the article mention anything about Phil Jones, the "scientist" from East Anglia University who had to resign because of climategate? NOOOO!! Does it mention that Al Gore owns the company that would be issuing the carbon credits?.... More
What if we create a better, less polluted world for nothing?!
Doesn't anyone think of big business' profits?
First, none of the neo-con morons will read this and, even if it's shoved in their faces, they will refuse to believe it. Fantasy is easier than facts.
Facts require thinking and logic. This explains politics, religion, the WWE, and NASCAR.
There are actually quite a few neoconservatives that support cap and trade legislation, along with much of the petroleum industry, who are actually quite involved in the crafting of such legislation. Industry can be quite clever in co-opting environmental movements and AGW is a splendid example of such. People will think they are doing something to save the planet when all they are really doing is lining the pockets of globalists that only seek a greater level of control over the world populous. .... More
Oh, and reading I would think. Read the comments below, obviously your "neo-con morons" did read this article. Oh, and look, they're the ones presenting actual numbers and science instead of the ad hominem attacks like yours.
Facts require thinking and logic. This explains why the CAGW crowd can't get it right.
I found on the web the compressed files containing all the eMail of prof jones. This compressed file also contains programs. More precisely Prolog routines. I am a software developer for 20 years and had a look at the code of these programs. In the module called briffa_sep_98_d.pro, one can read these lines of code:
.....
yyy=reform(compmxd(*,2,1))
;mknormal,yyy,timey,refperiod=[1881,1940]
;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
So 20 years ago someone noted exactly, precisely where a hack was needed, how to find it again later, how to correct it when new data came along and you claim it's evidence of malfeasance?
When you come to a fork in the road - flip a coin and write it down. The comment did not say "this is completely great - ignore this".
Climate change is caused primarily by solar activity & variations in our solar orbit.
Greenhouse gases are only one variable to consider when building a theory to model climate change.
CO2 is only a minor greenhouse gas; the most influential gas is H2O (water vapor). CO2 is a very minor part of a small variable – and the man made portion of this is even more miniscule – significantly less than 1 percent of all atmospheric CO2.
Al Gore's AGW movement conveniently.... More
Interesting article! PR is definitely needed.
To the skeptics:
Arctic definitely melting - You say "no global warming"
Antarctic melting/calving highest rate ever - You say "no global warming"
Greenland ice melting - You say "no global warming"
85% of all glaciers melting away - you say 15% are not!
Ocean temperatures increasing - you say "its a lie!"
Bad data thrown out - you say "Deception!!!"
Have you ever looked at REAL DATA in your life?.... More
Not all people who disagree with the IPCC's view of global warming disagree with natural shifts in climate. Among mainstream neoconservative or mainline GOP , yes.. THEY did outright deny climate shifts, however the majority of active "climate deniers" ( a shameful attempt to label them in association with holocaust deniers by Mr Gore...) whatever slander the opposition has, the majority of them DON'T hold the position that the climate does not change, but rather disagree with the CAUSE of.... More
Bolivian glaciers have evaporated due to cooling temperatures, drier climate and zero snowfall for over a decade. Antarctic ice is expanding due to cooling temperatures and increased precipitation. This results in a higher rate of calving as ice shelves are being pushed out into the open ocean.
It is suggested that you begin to research some of what you are claiming in order to continue with some intelligence concerning this discussion.
Your post lacks any credibility. Your rant only demonstrates that have no science background. Go back to school and when you can offer something factual to the debate feel free to return and post it.
I disagree with the comment "...we can't expect scientists to change." with regards to their PR skills.
Scientists have been changing in this context and must to do so. In my field (astrophysics) it is no longer acceptable to spend 5 years working on some esoteric subject only to mumble about it at coffee break. The world has moved on. If you don't communicate your work, then you don't (or at least, shouldn't) receive recognition or funding. Simple as that. To say "I'm a scientist, I.... More
So its a fact, get over it. You are an idiot because my unverified graph that only considers a fraction of the variables would lead a layman to believe that you are idiot. So its true. Stop denying it.
What a biased article; the author conveniently left out much of the story. Just because many scientists agree to a theory, it doesn't mean that it is the absolute truth; there are also many who happen to disagree. Try looking at both sides of the issue, instead of blindly following one and bashing the other side.
It is not that "many scientists" agree to a theory. It is that ALMOST ALL scientists agree to the theory, but the viral social networking of the GOP basement dweller non-believers has been more effective, and the PR of the scientists that have actually looked at the real data has be pretty lame. They are not marketers, they are scientists. They do science well, but never learned the social networking game.
There was far more to the Climategate scandal than the word trick. This was one situation where people somehow misinterpreted the word "trick", coming from greedy men, as negative. How about deleting data? Anything to say about that? As a scientist, I can say with absolute certainty that YOU NEVER DELETE DATA. Ever, period. So, can I have one response from a global warming advocate as to why these "scientists", a.k.a. whores, deleted data. They explicitly talked about deleting data in.... More
You delete weather data when it isn't usable in a climatic study. Short term data cannot be used to make climatic studies.
Michael, you are absolutely right on target. Who in their right mind could or would argue that an infinitesimal trace (.04%) gas essential to life on this planet, with an astronomical Global Warming Potential (GWP) index of 1 (one), is not responsible for runaway Global Warming? Keep the faith, baby, and beat these ignorant, Luddite, denier dogs to death.
Enter your comments here
This global racket is unravelling like a slow train crash.
The railway engineer can't put this back on the tracks.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7219070/Clima...
What next, an investigation of the
It is, I have discovered, a widely held belief that anyone who states opposition to this religion known as anthropogenic global warming (That would mean 'human caused' for those of you who don't like big words) is accused of being on the pay-role of the auto industry or some other evil spirited entity. So let's think logically on that for a moment.There are 24 million possibilities found on Google search for "Global warming blogs" Let's assume that each of those blogs has about 20 replies. That's.... More
The coverups and whitewashes continue. Are you angry about this obvious RICO Act fraud and the national media's complicity in the cover-up, misinformation, reframing and misdirection of the issue and the related “carbon derivatives” market Obama’s Administration is spinning up? Why pay for propaganda? Take responsibility and take action. STOP all donations to the political party(s) responsible for this fraud. STOP donations to all environmental groups which funded this Global.... More
We know the icecaps are melting. We know huge ice drifts are breaking off Antarctica. We know glaciers are receding at an alarming rate. So,believe it , don't believe it. It is still going to happen. Personally, I believe it cannot be stopped. Nature will take its course. No one knows the final results and humanity will probably survive.
Those in this world who want to play the carbon trading game will never help because they will just continue to add to the problem(for the all mighty.... More
... if the inquiry was done by a non-partisan organisation?
And no - I'm sorry to disappoint you - Climategate is far from over. Without Climategate the global warming believers would still go around thinking the glaciers at Himalaya was melting and would be gone in 2035!!!!
Actually, the IPCC error about Himalayan glaciers was unrelated to the Climategate emails. Scientists were the ones who pointed it out.
The carbon trade was forecast to trillions. It was billions last year, clearly enough to motivate anyone to haze every greenie in sight. Think of all the agendas, like car companies who have inversted in hybrids, like investors investing in tree farms, like banks backing carbon as one of the world's biggest commodities. Face it the green agenda has been HIJACKED and there are so many agendas to peel back. Climate has always changed so why should all climate changes suddenly be attributed to.... More
One of the tactics of the Right is to accuse the majority Center of their own tactics - vested financial interests, hijacking agendas. Such accusations are so bewildering that there seems little immediate to say in response, except, Um, are you ok?
If Carbon Tax Legislation is approved, All Driving will Be taxed by the Mile, Children will be born with a 3000$ debt to al gore and his flunkies, Taxes will be paid on farm animal's flatulence, all forms of meat, all fossil fuels, including motor oil and natural gas will be taxed, all plastic products will be have a carbon tax added, outdoor space-heaters and fireplaces, are to be taxed, All electricity produced by coal powered plants, will be taxed. There will be taxes on light bulbs, Water,.... More
but the global warmers still have their religion, cause it sure isn't
science.
What a desperate attempt to revive all the old shibboleths and spin Mann and the hockey stick as purer than pure (despite all the events and evidence pointing in diametrically the oppositie direction). And why in any case would anyone believe a word printed by a news organ that can't even spell the word 'hockey'?
The shrieks of the denialists get louder and louder the stronger the science gets. This exoneration of Mann is sending them into a frothing tizzy. The giant conspiracy they envision gets bigger and wilder every time. All the denialist camp has left is character assassination; there's no evidence, no science at all backing up their claims. That still doesn't stop them from continuing to repeat and bleat the same debunked assertions over and over and over.
Glad I aint the only one commenting on here that doesnt belong to internet ring trying to rig the blogosphere with screaming character assasinations, keep vocal friend.
""After a team of paid hackers illegally infiltrated the e-mail servers of the University of E. Anglia..."
Straight out lie! Your readers deserve some honesty! Stop misleading your readers! Get your facts straight first!
Does "John Doe" get paid per word or post?
2009 was the year that special interests hatched their comeback plan. It all began with Copenhagen and the s*** stirring conducted there. Then in January John Doe and other aliases started their social media/Internet campaign, posting for example to multiple LinkedIn groups, e.g. LEED certified builders, with posts like "Global warming - Fact or Fiction?"
What is new about this campaign is the intelligence of the minds behind it. It's not.... More
"After a team of paid hackers illegally infiltrated the e-mail servers of the University of E. Anglia"
Where is your evidence? For all we know, it could have leaked by a whitleblower.
Mann Hockey Stick had been debunked -- you're still using it to mislead your readers. This is so wrong.
No wonder fewer and fewer believe in global warming craps because of misleading articles such as this one.
When will this scam be put to rest for good?
Fancy trotting out the hockey stick graph. It's totally debunked. The scandal deepens from day to day.
OK people - Here's the joke. Two guys are walking in the desert and stop at an oasis. They can't see how wide the desert is or if there is another oasis along the way. It could be 2 miles, 20 miles or 200 miles before the find water again. The one man decides to carry as much water as he can in case the desert is wide...The other man decides that his buddy is part of a water conspiracy and takes none. The two men head out into the desert. Which one is the idiot?
Your computated joke is just that, a joke, and a poor one at that.
You put rubbish in you get rubbish out.
Or, closer to reality:
Two men enter a dark house on October 31. They keep encountering zombies, walking skeletons, etc. The first is terrified and, halfway through the house, decides that if he cuts off 1 leg and 1 arm then the undead beings will think he is one of them. The second man says "none of these things have hurt us, I think they're fake and/or illusions". In fact, he then goes back and pulls off some masks and pulls out some power cords, providing evidence that many of there.... More
Since when was making better houses that don't need as much energy to heat and cool a bad thing? Electric cars are only expensive because there aren't very many of them, and they cost way less than gasoline cars to operate. How is using energy that we won't run out of for the forseeable future a bad thing? Wind farms and solar power don't honestly take as much space as you'd think, either.
So when most of the stuff that people want to do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is good for.... More
Umm, I agree it's a good thing not to pollute, that just makes sense. But is CO2 pollution? Animals BREATH OUT CO2, and it's FOOD for plants! And that's what sends up all the red flags...CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas relative to other molecules, and it's very low concentration relative to the powerful greenhouse gas water vapor means its effects aren't as bad as one might think. Back on track, cutting CO2 emissions by the recommended 80% would cause ridiculous harm...3rd world countries.... More
I really appreciate your article on "cliamtegate" I find it so very interesting that there people out there don't trust 90% of the world's scientists. What do the conservative bloggers that write in get out of reading your site so often? What do the people writing in do that affords them the luxury to read something on a regular basis that they whole-heartedly disagree with? My goodness, I don't care for Glen Beck much so therefore I don't read his blogs or watch his show. I understand.... More
@anonymous "90% of the world scientists", I think you refer to a voluntary poll where only 1/3 responded. All were climate scientists whose job/career depended on AGW research grants. I think if you included those who didn't respond and a wider random sample you would find quite a difference.
Consider the Oregon petition with 31,000 signatories including 9,000 phDs saying it's hogwash. I don't think the side who is funded to believe in AGW can match anything like that. Anyway, I.... More
Internal Investigation concludes..."We're Innocent!!"
Ha ha ha ha ha
"..Move along lady, Nothing to see here."
LOL
