Dec 04 2009

UN Decides Climategate Is Serious

Published by at 2:00 pm under All General Discussions

Well, well, well – it seems the UN IPCC has realized Climategate is serious and could ruin the reputations of thousands of scientists, politicians and journalists who fell down on their responsibility to verify the claims of data cookers at CRU, Penn State, NASA GIS and possibly elsewhere (UCAR/NCAR comes to mind).

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said the matter could not be swept “under the carpet”.

Dr Pachauri told BBC Radio 4’s The Report programme that the claims were serious and he wants them investigated.

“We will certainly go into the whole lot and then we will take a position on it,” he said.

“We certainly don’t want to brush anything under the carpet. This is a serious issue and we will look into it in detail.”

Sounds, er – serious. And it is. There is a lot of hard evidence in the CRU data dump, evidence in code and data that put the email discussions about suborning the scientific method, the peer-review process and the legal requirements of FOIAs into criminal context.

For example:

  • There is in-line code which hides the warm period in the 1930’s and 1940’s while elevating the recent temps to cover up the fact today’s climate is basically the same as that period – which had much lower atmospheric CO2 levels:

Climategate Escalating, Smoking Gun Could Be 1940’s ‘Blip’

The AGW Cover Up Is In The Code – Smoking Gun Update!

Climategate: The Smoking Code

How To Hide Global Cooling: Delete The “1940’s Blip”

NASA GISS Did Hide 1940’s Blip

  • There is clear evidence that Phil Jones lied to the world in August when he said the original CRU data was lost in the 1980’s and not available for FOIA requests:

Proof CRU Did Not Lose Their Raw Station Data

CRU’s Jones Supposedly Lost Data Used In 2008

More Evidence CRU Has Raw Temp Data & It Shows No AGW

These two scandals – hiding the fact current temps are not much different from nearly 70 years ago and trying to claim the raw data was destroyed two decades ago – are  more than enough evidence to call into question the entire AGW theory. The IPCC should be worried, there house of cards is now standing on very shaky ground.

And that is before we even get to simply and reasonable scientific challenges to the global temperature index, the foundation for the entire AGW theory, such as the question of the uncertainty and error in the data and processing steps, and therefore also inside alarmists’ conclusions:

CRU Raw Temp Data Shows No Significant Warming Over Most Of The World

The One Place On Earth Runaway Warming Should Be Obvious

Alarmists Hide Truth About (Lack Of) Global Warming

Global Temperature Reality Is Inside The Error Bars

And the general question of how the flat historic temps turn into rampant warming through magical statistical processes only the warmists know about:

Where Does Global Warming Actually Come From?

Wow, CRU Admits Little Evidence Of Recent Warming

Another AGW Smoking Gun

And there is also that professional problem of dealing with crappy code producing results that are not verified or defensible.

The World’s Future Hangs On “OH F–K THIS”!

The End Of The Earth Is Coming, But Scientists Cannot Write Professional Quality SW!

CRU Code & Data A Disaster

It seems to me some serious people started looking closely at what the blogosphere was turning up and realized this is not a flash in the pan joke or PR game. This IS serious.

Update: And how could I forget the snake oil (tree rings) used to try and hide the settled science regarding the Medieval Warming Period!

Fraudulent hockey sticks and hidden data

3 responses so far

3 Responses to “UN Decides Climategate Is Serious”

  1. Neo says:

    Remember how the “deniers” are subsidized by “big oil” .. well Gerald R. Davis (Group Planning, Shell International Petroleum, London, UK) and Douglas D McKay of Shell International Limited, London show up on a few of the CRU e-mails …

    Thank all of you who have attended the SRES Lead Authors’ meeting (17-19 September 1997) (0876171248).
    Meeting at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California to review the work progress of the four modeling groups (0884731847).
    Request for firm number of attendees to IPCC SRES Meeting (0885318160).
    Report of minutes of minutes of the SRES informal modelers’ meeting (0887665729).
    RE-schedule of the next IPCC-SRES Full Authors meeting will be held the week of 27 April 1998 (0888364876).
    Info on upcoming IPCC SRES meeting (0888611422).
    A solicitation for review of the influence of social and economic policies on future carbon emissions for the SRES (0889047457).
    Sending you a copy of Ged Davis’ IPCC-SRES Zero Order Draft on storylines and scenarios (0889554019).
    Change of venue for Lead Authors meeting (0893188400).
    Guidelines on how to present the IS99 storylines and scenarios (0894639050).
    Info on upcoming next SRES Lead Authors meeting in Beijing, China (0904080701).
    Request for RSVPs to next SRES Meeting (0904762907).
    A solicitation of input for the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) AR3 (0914013281).

    In 0962818260, they mention a meeting to have Shell “… accept an invitation to act as a strategic
    partner and will contribute to a studentship fund …”

  2. Jeff Z says:

    I’m greatly appreciative of these long detailed posts, as I am almost totally unfamiliar with climate science. In some fields, I have enough familiarity with the subject to have a general idea of the strengths, weaknesses, and general reliability of the stories I read, but not in this field.

    In light of that, is anyone familiar with this article about atmospheric CO2 measurements: ? The author makes, to my completely ignorant eyes, a very strong case that the CO2 measuring stations are too few and poorly located , but I actually have no idea whatsoever.

    If there were even some truth to what he is saying, that would be…hyperbole fails me.

  3. […] is not going away. As I noted in my previous post this is not about emails where so called scientists suborning the peer-review process and […]