rushmc 18 #1 September 29, 2015 A very interesting read show the lies they use to push AWG QuoteOn 22 November 1996 from Geoff Jenkins (UK Met Office) to Phil Jones, “ “Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with early release of information (via Oz), “inventing” the December monthly value, letters to Nature etc etc? I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year, simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.” “We feed this selectively to Nick Nuttall (Executive Director of UNEP) (who has had this in the past and seems now to expect special treatment) so that he can write an article for the silly season. We could also give this to Neville Nicholls (IPCC lead author and Australian Met Bureau employee.)??” They are talking about releasing an annual global temperature before the year is over. Hardly scientific or responsible bureaucratic behavior, but they think deceiving the public is “fun.” It is a practice still going on. On March 11, 2003, Mann acknowledged they silenced skeptics by criticizing them for not having peer-reviewed publications. Mann wrote, “ “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! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. 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 our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board.” On 24 April 2003 Wigley was upset about Hans von Storch’s editorial role and proposes to mislead the publishers, “ “One approach is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their journal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation under the guise of refereed work. I use the word ‘perceived’ here, since whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about — it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts.” On 21 Jan 2005 Jones wrote to Wigley about requests under the Freedom of Information Act, “ “Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.” Why would he need to hide? On 8 July 2004 Jones to Mann, “ 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! The malfeasance is especially bad because the role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is to review all the literature. On 2 February 2005 from Jones to Mann “ “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.” On 29 April 2007 Briffa to Mann; in a comment that reinforces the idea that Briffa is troubled by what was going on. “ “I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same.” The journal “Nature”, apparently complicit in the corruption of the peer-review process, revealed its bias when it editorialized. “ “If there are benefits to the e-mail theft, one is to highlight yet again the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts. Governments and institutions need to provide tangible assistance for researchers facing such a burden.” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/28/the-need-to-revisit-the-climategate-revelations-to-counter-mainstream-media-failure-and-the-paris-climate-conference-plans/"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,380 #2 September 29, 2015 NOAA Summary Information The State of the Climate Summary Information is a synopsis of the collection of national and global summaries released each month. Global highlights: Seasonal (June–August 2015) The June–August average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was the highest such period since records began in 1880, at 1.53°F (0.85°C) above the 20th century average. This surpassed the previous record set in 2014 by 0.20°F (0.11°C). The globally-averaged land surface temperature for June–August 2015 was 1.98°F (1.10°C) above the 20th century average—the highest for June–August in the 1880–2015 record, besting the previous record set in 2010 by +0.13°F (+0.07°C). Record warmth was observed across much of South America, and parts of Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and the western contiguous U.S. The June–August globally-averaged sea surface temperature was 1.35°F (0.75°C) above the 20th century average and the highest departure from average for the season in the 1880–2015 record. This value exceeded the previous record set in 2014 by +0.11°F (+0.06°C). Large portions of the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean, the Indian Ocean, and parts of the Atlantic Ocean had record warm temperatures. Global highlights: Year-to-date (January–August 2015) The year-to-date temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.51°F (0.84°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest for January–August in the 1880–2015 record, surpassing the previous record set in 2010 by 0.18°F (0.10°C). The year-to-date globally-averaged land surface temperature was the highest for January–August in the 1880–2015 record at 2.32°F (1.29°C) above the 20th century average. This value exceeded the previous record of 2007 by 0.29°F (0.16°C). Much of the world's land surface experienced much-warmer-than-average conditions during the first eight months of the year, with much of South America and parts of North America, Africa, Europe, and Asia experiencing record warmth. The year-to-date globally-averaged sea surface temperature was 1.22°F (0.68°C) above the 20th century average and the highest for January–August in the 1880–2015 record. This value surpassed the previous record of 2014 by +0.13°F (+0.07°C). A large portion of the northeastern and equatorial Pacific Ocean observed record warmth, while the other major basins observed record warmth in some areas. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #3 September 29, 2015 billvonNOAA Summary Information The State of the Climate Summary Information is a synopsis of the collection of national and global summaries released each month. Global highlights: Seasonal (June–August 2015) The June–August average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was the highest such period since records began in 1880, at 1.53°F (0.85°C) above the 20th century average. This surpassed the previous record set in 2014 by 0.20°F (0.11°C). The globally-averaged land surface temperature for June–August 2015 was 1.98°F (1.10°C) above the 20th century average—the highest for June–August in the 1880–2015 record, besting the previous record set in 2010 by +0.13°F (+0.07°C). Record warmth was observed across much of South America, and parts of Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and the western contiguous U.S. The June–August globally-averaged sea surface temperature was 1.35°F (0.75°C) above the 20th century average and the highest departure from average for the season in the 1880–2015 record. This value exceeded the previous record set in 2014 by +0.11°F (+0.06°C). Large portions of the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean, the Indian Ocean, and parts of the Atlantic Ocean had record warm temperatures. Global highlights: Year-to-date (January–August 2015) The year-to-date temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.51°F (0.84°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest for January–August in the 1880–2015 record, surpassing the previous record set in 2010 by 0.18°F (0.10°C). The year-to-date globally-averaged land surface temperature was the highest for January–August in the 1880–2015 record at 2.32°F (1.29°C) above the 20th century average. This value exceeded the previous record of 2007 by 0.29°F (0.16°C). Much of the world's land surface experienced much-warmer-than-average conditions during the first eight months of the year, with much of South America and parts of North America, Africa, Europe, and Asia experiencing record warmth. The year-to-date globally-averaged sea surface temperature was 1.22°F (0.68°C) above the 20th century average and the highest for January–August in the 1880–2015 record. This value surpassed the previous record of 2014 by +0.13°F (+0.07°C). A large portion of the northeastern and equatorial Pacific Ocean observed record warmth, while the other major basins observed record warmth in some areas. Your post doesn't address the statements of the previous post. Sounds to me, if the quotes are real, there is some real funny stuff going on behind the scenesI'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #4 September 29, 2015 If you wish to see nefarious dealings in those quotes, you will. If you read them with an open mind, there are many explanations, all of which have to do with the context in which they were written. I didn't really see anything wrong with most of those quotes. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,380 #5 September 29, 2015 >Sounds to me, if the quotes are real, there is some real funny stuff going on >behind the scenes Indeed. A political party and a lot of fossil fuel investors stand to lose big if people learn what's really going on. With that much money involved, there is a huge incentive to deny the science, and to replace it with "funny stuff" in your terminology. Fortunately not all people in the GOP deny the science: ============================ Republican megadonor urges talk on climate change solutions Associated Press By JULIE BYKOWICZ 21 hours ago WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican businessman Jay Faison says his party should stop fighting science and start talking solutions to climate change. He has $175 million in potential political donations to help inspire them. And if that's not enough, he's commissioned a survey, released Monday, that he says shows voters agree. "I'm pretty frustrated about the political divide," Faison said. "This is too important to leave to the Democrats." Faison made his fortune in 2013 with the sale of his majority stake in his audio-visual equipment company, based in Charlotte, North Carolina. He sank much of his profit into the ClearPath Foundation and a separate politically active policy group; both are devoted to moving Republicans beyond saying that the climate is not changing — or, if it is, that humans have nothing to do with it. Instead, GOP leaders should be talking about solutions, such as clean energy, Faison said. . . . . Faison said his survey found that a majority of Republican voters believe human activity is contributing at least "a little" to climate change, though Republicans were less likely than others in the survey to say so. Republicans should debate climate change by emphasizing the need to develop clean energy, using buzzwords such as "innovation," ''jobs creation" and "energy security" when they talk about the issue, Faison and his pollsters said. The survey was conducted by three leading Republican pollsters, including Whit Ayres, who is working for Florida Sen. Marco Rubio's presidential campaign. Another pollster, Kristen Soltis Anderson, said the results showed voters are eager to "depoliticize" climate change and clean energy. ============== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #6 September 29, 2015 NOAA?? Nice"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #7 September 29, 2015 billvon> Another pollster, Kristen Soltis Anderson, said the results showed voters are eager to "depoliticize" climate change and clean energy. ============== Easily done The alarmists need only to stop lying And threatening "denier" with the RICO laws does not help either http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/29/climate-activists-want-us-prosecuted-under-rico/ Interesting And I bet you have seen the reports of Those climate scientists who think we may have already started a 30 year cooling trend Of course they are nuts or worse, paid off But you are using NOAA info now? Not much better than Mann these days Yep The evil fossil fuel companies are at it again And then there is this QuoteApproximately 92% (or 99%) of USHCN surface temperature data consists of estimated values Give confidence to the process huh! http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/27/approximately-92-or-99-of-ushcn-surface-temperature-data-consists-of-estimated-values/ From the link QuoteConclusion The US accounts for 6.62% of the land area on Earth, but accounts for 39% of the data in the GHCN network. Overall, from 1880 to the present, approximately 99% of the temperature data in the USHCN homogenized output has been estimated (differs from the original raw data). Approximately 92% of the temperature data in the USHCN TOB output has been estimated. The GHCN adjustment models estimate approximately 92% of the US temperatures, but those estimates do not match either the USHCN TOB or homogenized estimates. The homogenization estimate introduces a positive temperature trend of approximately 0.34 C per century relative to the USHCN raw data. The TOBs estimate introduces a positive temperature trend of approximately 0.16 C per century. These are not additive. The homogenization trend already accounts for the TOBs trend. I agree with you Bill that this is a political football But, we disagree as to which side is the major pusher of the politics"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #8 September 29, 2015 DanG If you wish to see nefarious dealings in those quotes, you will. If you read them with an open mind, there are many explanations, all of which have to do with the context in which they were written. I didn't really see anything wrong with most of those quotes. Of course you dont"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,120 #9 September 29, 2015 I do wonder why the GOP is the only mainstream political party in the world denying climate science. Hard to believe a party responsible for the likes of Trump and Palin would be the only ones who get the science right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #10 September 29, 2015 SkyDekkerI do wonder why the GOP is the only mainstream political party in the world denying climate science. Hard to believe a party responsible for the likes of Trump and Palin would be the only ones who get the science right. Being correct helps"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,120 #11 September 29, 2015 True, but unlike you I don't believe it to be correct just because the GOP thinks that way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #12 September 29, 2015 SkyDekkerI do wonder why the GOP is the only mainstream political party in the world denying climate science. Hard to believe a party responsible for the likes of Trump and Palin would be the only ones who get the science right. I think it is less that and more waiting for the science to be Less manipulated, politically motivated, rhetoric.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #13 September 29, 2015 SkyDekkerTrue, but unlike you I don't believe it to be correct just because the GOP thinks that way. Nor does the GOP affect how I think about it But then, that does not fit your story line does it"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #14 September 29, 2015 QuoteOf course you dont And of course you do - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #15 September 29, 2015 DanGQuoteOf course you dont And of course you do Any open minded person would truly question the intent"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,120 #16 September 29, 2015 QuoteBut then, that does not fit your story line does it I think that if anybody is specifically known on this site for sticking to a story line, no matter what actual evidence is suggesting, it would be you. So, that was a rather funny comment. Well done making a funny. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #17 September 29, 2015 SkyDekkerQuoteBut then, that does not fit your story line does it I think that if anybody is specifically known on this site for sticking to a story line, no matter what actual evidence is suggesting, it would be you. So, that was a rather funny comment. Well done making a funny. Why thank you But it must be harder for you in the face of the evidence presented So, go for you too!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,380 #18 September 29, 2015 >Those climate scientists who think we may have already started a 30 year cooling trend Warmest years on record: 2014 2010 2005 1998 Warmest Jan-Aug on record: 2015 Sorry about the facts; I know you have an allergy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,380 #19 September 29, 2015 >I think it is less that and more waiting for the science to be Less manipulated, >politically motivated, rhetoric. That would be nice. But there are far too many people who stand to lose far too much money on their fossil fuel investments for that to be true. Same thing happened with tobacco companies. When the Surgeon General released his report on the dangers of smoking, tobacco companies went into full-on denial mode. "There's no consensus! The science isn't settled!" They hired "experts" to dispute the science. This worked for a while, and tobacco sales increased for a little while until they could no longer lie convincingly enough. Deniers are doing the same thing today. Heck, some of the best-paid climate deniers are the same people as the lung cancer deniers of decades ago. They have denial down to a science, and they are VERY good at it - and they are VERY well funded. Until that changes, expect deniers to continue to try to confuse, deny and deflect to serve their financial masters. Fortunately, worldwide, understanding of climate change is growing. As the tobacco companies proved, you can only fool people so long. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,619 #20 September 29, 2015 Recognize yourself?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #21 September 29, 2015 billvon >Those climate scientists who think we may have already started a 30 year cooling trend Warmest years on record: 2014 2010 2005 1998 Warmest Jan-Aug on record: 2015 Sorry about the facts; I know you have an allergy. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #22 September 29, 2015 rushmc A very interesting read show the lies they use to push AWG Quote On 22 November 1996 from Geoff Jenkins (UK Met Office) to Phil Jones, “ “Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with early release of information (via Oz), “inventing” the December monthly value, letters to Nature etc etc? I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year, simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.” “We feed this selectively to Nick Nuttall (Executive Director of UNEP) (who has had this in the past and seems now to expect special treatment) so that he can write an article for the silly season. We could also give this to Neville Nicholls (IPCC lead author and Australian Met Bureau employee.)??” They are talking about releasing an annual global temperature before the year is over. Hardly scientific or responsible bureaucratic behavior, but they think deceiving the public is “fun.” It is a practice still going on. On March 11, 2003, Mann acknowledged they silenced skeptics by criticizing them for not having peer-reviewed publications. Mann wrote, “ “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! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. 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 our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board.” On 24 April 2003 Wigley was upset about Hans von Storch’s editorial role and proposes to mislead the publishers, “ “One approach is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their journal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation under the guise of refereed work. I use the word ‘perceived’ here, since whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about — it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts.” On 21 Jan 2005 Jones wrote to Wigley about requests under the Freedom of Information Act, “ “Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.” Why would he need to hide? On 8 July 2004 Jones to Mann, “ 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! The malfeasance is especially bad because the role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is to review all the literature. On 2 February 2005 from Jones to Mann “ “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.” On 29 April 2007 Briffa to Mann; in a comment that reinforces the idea that Briffa is troubled by what was going on. “ “I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same.” The journal “Nature”, apparently complicit in the corruption of the peer-review process, revealed its bias when it editorialized. “ “If there are benefits to the e-mail theft, one is to highlight yet again the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts. Governments and institutions need to provide tangible assistance for researchers facing such a burden.” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/28/the-need-to-revisit-the-climategate-revelations-to-counter-mainstream-media-failure-and-the-paris-climate-conference-plans/ Company Newsletter came out today didn't it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #23 September 30, 2015 billvon>I think it is less that and more waiting for the science to be Less manipulated, >politically motivated, rhetoric. That would be nice. But there are far too many people who stand to lose far too much money on their fossil fuel investments for that to be true. Same thing happened with tobacco companies. When the Surgeon General released his report on the dangers of smoking, tobacco companies went into full-on denial mode. "There's no consensus! The science isn't settled!" They hired "experts" to dispute the science. This worked for a while, and tobacco sales increased for a little while until they could no longer lie convincingly enough. Deniers are doing the same thing today. Heck, some of the best-paid climate deniers are the same people as the lung cancer deniers of decades ago. They have denial down to a science, and they are VERY good at it - and they are VERY well funded. Until that changes, expect deniers to continue to try to confuse, deny and deflect to serve their financial masters. Fortunately, worldwide, understanding of climate change is growing. As the tobacco companies proved, you can only fool people so long. Interesting how you are a denier of how much the "green" energy industrial complex is slated to lose in the same way that big oil will. Is it really just about what team you bat for?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skypuppy 1 #24 September 30, 2015 billvon>Those climate scientists who think we may have already started a 30 year cooling trend Warmest years on record: 2014 2010 2005 1998 Warmest Jan-Aug on record: 2015 Sorry about the facts; I know you have an allergy. January this year was the coldest ever in southern Ontario. And February last year was the coldest ever there. I don't know that I can believe your data - the scientists have emailed each other about concealing data that doesn't agree with them. How do we know they didn't take the raw temps and then 'estimate' them higher?If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,619 #25 September 30, 2015 skypuppy***>Those climate scientists who think we may have already started a 30 year cooling trend Warmest years on record: 2014 2010 2005 1998 Warmest Jan-Aug on record: 2015 Sorry about the facts; I know you have an allergy. January this year was the coldest ever in southern Ontario. And February last year was the coldest ever there. I don't know that I can believe your data I hate to break it to you, but southern Ontario is not the world, nor even representative of it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites