Tip Sheet

Weather Channel Founder & 30,000 Other Scientists Want to Sue Al Gore for Global Warming Fraud

Meredith Jessup
Blogger, Townhall.com

Tweet

Click Here!

Interesting...

Tags: Energy and Environment , Global Warming

Breaking on TOWNHALL

Join the Debate

83 Comments So Far

Login in to Post Your Comments

Adam99 Wrote: Nov 29, 2009 12:24 PM

The comment Jones made was in response to work he thought was sloppy and lacked proper backing scientifically. Keeping sloppy work out of scientific publications is part of peer review. If you don't pass peer review you don't publish.

If you think the peer review process in climatology is brutal you should try the one we have in the space program. When your work will be reviewed by the best scientists in the country you either bring good data and a solid theory or you go home crying. Even after passing that hurdle your work is subject to re-examination forever as new data comes to light. Like Bob indicated, the process never ends but the bar of proof keeps getting higher until nobody can jump over it with the existing data. At...

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Adam99 Wrote: Nov 29, 2009 12:07 PM

Yep they accidentially discarded the raw data in a move, hardly a nefarious act (Haven't you ever cleaned out your attic and wished you didn't thrown something out?) but it is of little consequence scientifically for two reasons.

1) They kept the published data and they know their adjustment algorithims so some hapless grad student will probably spend the next year in tedious reconstruction, "Tricking Back" to the original data. This would yield a very accurate reconstruction.

2) Do you think that East Anglica is the only university taking climate measurements worldwide? Their data was gathered and conformed with hundreds of other sources as a cross check.

Losing one database in a field of data that is global and...

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Jo312 Wrote: Nov 29, 2009 11:32 AM

said: Not incriminating e-mails, just ones that were worded in a way that the uninformed would misunderstand.

Jo: You mean like Phil Jones who wrote "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!"

I think that is clear enough for the average person.

now this today:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article69 36328.ece

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global...

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Adam99 Wrote: Nov 29, 2009 10:06 AM

Not incriminating e-mails, just ones that were worded in a way that the uninformed would misunderstand.

That is not the point though, no deletions were made because the Scientist receiving the request, Michael Mann, did not think it was appropriate. Here is his e-mail thread from an article he authored concerning the hacking incident.

"DS: Phil Jones again wrote "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment -minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise."

MM: This was simply an email that was sent to me, and can in no way be taken to indicate...

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Jo312 Wrote: Nov 29, 2009 8:32 AM

coercion to delete incriminating e-mails, because of fear of the freedom of information act -- was a "scientific e-mail trick" too.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Adam99 Wrote: Nov 29, 2009 12:58 AM

In case you didn't get the memo there are not 30,000 climate scientists suing Al Gore. In fact there is no suit and the people on the Oregon petition simply have to have an undergratute degree in science. That means that a guy with a degree in computer science is qualified to sign the paper. Would you feel good about 30,000 podiatrists and vetranarians making climate decisions? If so then knock yourself out, but I get my climatological data from climatologists!

I do not think there are any climatologists on the paper and only a few meterologists. (Back to the weather versus climate point I made earlier). Anyway with data, no suit and a dubious list of supporters you still haven't begun to convice me!

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Jo312 Wrote: Nov 29, 2009 12:48 AM

Scientific fraud has happened before. Were they conspiracies?

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Adam99 Wrote: Nov 29, 2009 12:42 AM

Jo you are confusing weather and climate!

They are NOT the same thing.

Local weather and global climate are vastly different although the latter does affect the former.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Jo312 Wrote: Nov 29, 2009 12:38 AM

Are you suggesting that 30,000 + scientists don't know what a trick is?

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Adam99 Wrote: Nov 29, 2009 12:32 AM

I like most scientists use the word trick in a way that you would find odd as well,

I "trick the data back" all the time, that does not mean that I falsify my data. In the case of tricking back it means I created a formula to back check some math. For example the proof for 2x2=4 would be 4/2=2.

For other instances a trick to clarify a process is used.

If I want to add all the numbers from 1 to a certain number (lets say 100=X) I can do it two ways. I can use 1+2+3+4+...=Y etc. or I can simply use Y=(X^2+X)/2. If I am reading a paper that uses the first method I would say to the author " I used the trick (x^2+x) / 2 to hide your tedious math.

You could infer that I thought he got the wrong answer or I was...

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Jo312 Wrote: Nov 29, 2009 12:18 AM

George Monbiot is a journalist even greener than Faine:

Mr Monbiot, who writes on green issues, said the emails could scarcely be more damaging.

Bon Ward would know more about the issue than Faine:

Bob Ward, a climate expert at the London School of Economics and Political Science, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230635/Scientist- climate-change-cover-storm-told-quit.html#ixzz0XpqqTHO1” title="demanded an independent inquiry">demanded an independent inquiry.

So would Hans von Storch, a climatologist and former editor Climate Research:

...

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Jo312 Wrote: Nov 29, 2009 12:18 AM

And on further checking, Stockwell found the CSIRO’s models could not even predict the past (wetter) weather:

It looks to me that in the last 50 years of observations (1950-2007) in almost all regions, observations of drought are decreasing (red), while the models of drought are increasing (black).

Surely reader Steve heard wrong. Surely this is Jon Faine’s little joke:

This morning at around 9.15 John Faine (on Melbourne ABC radio) stated that he would not be discussing or reporting the emails and data taken from CRU or even discussing its implications as he considers it irrelevant and insignificant. He stated that he made the decision that is unnewsworthy and will be discussed on his program going...

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Adam99 Wrote: Nov 29, 2009 12:15 AM

I read your message but could not derive your point; what are you saying?

If you want an answer as to whether we should burn fossil fuels the answer is no we should not! When we do we take carbon that nature has sequestered and return it to active movement through the carbon cycle. The sequestering of this carbon resulted in the moderate climate we need to survive. Reversing the sequestering process will remove that moderate climate and replace it with a very hostile one.

Not all alkanes are the same. We can use Methane (CH4) to get Hydrogen for fuel and the carbon footprint is low enough that a moderate capture program would render the use carbon neutral. Coal on the other hand (@C135 H96) is virtually impossible to use...

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Jo312 Wrote: Nov 29, 2009 12:11 AM

.... More seriously, in one e-mail, a prominent global warming alarmist admits to using a statistical "trick" to "hide the decline" in temperatures. Anthony Watts provides an explanation of this case in technical detail; the "trick" consists of selectively mixing two different kinds of data-temperature "proxies" from tree rings and actual thermometer measurements-in a way designed to produce a graph of global temperatures that ends the way the global warming establishment wants it to: with an upward "hockey stick" slope.http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html

-------------------------

Trick otherwise known to the average person as deception or a lie.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Jo312 Wrote: Nov 29, 2009 12:02 AM

attacking the source and not the content is old. The UK pulled this off it has nothing to do with Fox news. There were over 1000 e-mails to several scientists that clearly indicated they not only black-balled in the case of attempted peer review, but also some e-mails indicated the figures to support climate change were WRONG. They fudged the numbers. And they talked about getting rid of those e-mails in unison so the freedom of information act couldn't access the proof they rigged the science.

Fro the Hill if you prefer where a Congressional investigation will soon be underway....

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Adam99 Wrote: Nov 29, 2009 12:01 AM

The verbiage changed because the science evolved and the words needed to be all encompassing. The concept of natural and anthropogenic forcing was not incorrect in the 80's it was just missing a couple puzzle pieces. We have since filled them in.

Use your car as an example. If you want to go 60 mph you can do it two ways.

You can depress the pedal smoothly until you reach 60 then back it off to maintain 60 until you run out of gas, or you can floor it and release it repeatedly to try and maintain 60 as an average.

One way will not harm the car and will get good gas mileage, the other will destroy the engine and waste gas. At any given point with the second method it is impossible to determine if you are...

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

albert henry Wrote: Nov 28, 2009 11:50 PM

imagine, if you are a scientist who's then to say fossil fuels aren't ours to burn, you?

long before you save the enviroment types were on the scenes, conservationist were busy. the duck hunters of North America, through a self-imposed tax, and private charities have set aside wetlands that would equal the size of the state of Mass. Canadian geese down to 500 pairs in the early 60's now millions. there are now more snow geese on this continent than when Columbus discovered America. the migratory waterfowl population has been stable since the dust bowl years, and one would think from all the damage we have done to the enviroment, this would be the leading indicator. oh ya, for your information one duffus in the 1890's...

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Adam99 Wrote: Nov 28, 2009 11:41 PM

Here in his own words is Michael Mann discussing the hacked e-mails. By the way it appears that the e-mail not to his liking was one that left out some data and gave a false impression that there was some controversy left in his position about ACC. In other words it appears that you are saying that the supressed idea was that there is still some uncertainity in this scientists mind.

Here is his direct quote:

"This comment was in response to a very specific incident regarding a paper by Soon and Baliunas published in the journal "Climate Research". An editor of the journal, with rather contrarian views on climate change, appeared to several of us to be gaming the system to let through papers that clearly did not meet the...

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Jo312 Wrote: Nov 28, 2009 11:20 PM

asks: Why do you think it's called "Climate Change" instead of Global Warming lately?

Because it's a fraud and the verbiage has to change with the lie.

Hate to break it to you, but the lie has been exposed. Time to embrace the truth.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Jo312 Wrote: Nov 28, 2009 11:17 PM

Bob said at 9:00 PM: "The science is settled, and there's no longer a substantive argument going on."

Bob said 10:46
"I've never said the debate is over."

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Adam99 Wrote: Nov 28, 2009 11:16 PM

I guess you don't get it! As we shift CO2 medians we also acidify the ocean, change the local agricultural components over vast areas and cause sea currents to alter or cease. This effect causes a rapid climate shift when a trigger point is reached. Some areas plunge and others rise.

In the 80's scientists were worried that it would happen from a natural cycle alone. Subsequently it was found that ACC was making it more likely and also shortening the time frame.

Why do you think it's called "Climate Change" instead of Global Warming lately? It's because the shift in median CO2 will cause a whipsaw effect in some areas and result in some areas going into a cold cycle. The facts show that we could not survive the result...

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Jo312 Wrote: Nov 28, 2009 11:11 PM

Read!
"As anonymous reviewers of choice for certain journals, Mr. Mann & Co. had considerable power to enforce the consensus, but it was not absolute, as they discovered in 2003. Mr. Mann noted in a March 2003 email, after the journal "Climate Research" published a paper not to Mr. Mann's liking, that "This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the 'peer-reviewed literature'. Obviously, they found a solution to that—take over a journal!"

Mr. Mann went on to suggest that the journal itself be blackballed: "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of...

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Dose of Reality Wrote: Nov 28, 2009 11:07 PM

DO you think if someone could come up with a viable, sustainable, efficient, enviromentally friendly source of energy that they would do it? Do you think big oil and big coal industry can/could stop someone from doing that? Whoever is that smart and creates an energy source like this, they would be the richest person in the history of the world and nothing could stop them. Everytime I hear someone saying big oil ist stopping this from happening I have to shake my head in amazement. I guess the candle industry conspired against Thomas Edison and prevented him from discovering the light bulb or the telegraph industry prevented him from inventing the telephone....

To be so smart you scientists and college professors are...

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Jo312 Wrote: Nov 28, 2009 11:04 PM

Jo, There is NOT peer reviewed science on both sides and repeated claims of this non existent data will not conjure it up! Produce some links to credible science or quit saying this!

Jo: Have you been following climategate at all? Peer review was not allowed! It's all a scam a fraud - wake up and smell the corruption.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Jo312 Wrote: Nov 28, 2009 11:00 PM

we were all going to freeze to death.

-yawn-

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

New comments on this article - click to refresh