My News Clippings

Posts Tagged ‘Phil Jones’

The Cli­mate Sci­ence Isn’t Set­tled, Con­fi­dent pre­dic­tions of cat­a­stro­phe are unwar­ranted (Wall Street Jour­nal)
A rather detailed dis­cus­sion on global warm­ing that looks at that the glob­ally aver­aged tem­per­a­ture anom­aly (GATA). It is def­i­nitely worth a read but I’m not sure what point Lindzen is try­ing to make in the final paragraph.

When sci­en­tists behave like bul­lies (San Fran­cisco Chron­i­cle)
Debra Saun­ders writes about the damn­ing cor­rup­tion of sci­ence by global warm­ing scientists.

Leaked emails won’t harm UN cli­mate body, says chair­man (Guardian)
Chair­man of the UN’s Inter­gov­ern­men­tal Panel on Cli­mate Change (IPCC) says global warm­ing is not debunk because of a few sci­en­tists. For Rajen­dra Pachauri – check out the pic­ture accom­pa­ny­ing the arti­cle as this guy is a def­i­nite look-​alike of the Uni­bomber and his the reli­gion of Anthro­pogenic Global Warm­ing (AGW) is just as dan­ger­ous to civ­i­liza­tion. Any­way, he claims that despite every­thing, AGW is alive and well. He even defended Phil Jones and said he should not resign.

We will release the data…
Cli­mate­gate: Uni­ver­sity of East Anglia U-​turn in cli­mate change row (Tele­graph)
We threw away the data…
Cli­mate change data dumped (Times)
The Cli­mate Research Unit says, accord­ing to the Tele­graph, that they will release the raw data that global warm­ing is based upon. At the same time the Times reports that the same folks now admit that the raw data was thrown away. All they kept was the manip­u­lated data they cre­ated to sup­port global warm­ing. As Roger Pielke, pro­fes­sor of envi­ron­men­tal stud­ies at Col­orado Uni­ver­sity, is quoted in the Times, “The CRU is basi­cally say­ing, ‘Trust us’.”

Tell it to the ice caps, An e-​mail storm wors­ens the cli­mate for con­sen­sus (Wash­ing­ton Post)
Don’t let a lit­tle sci­en­tific fraud get in the way. Eugene Robin­son white­washes the débâ­cle that global warm­ing to sug­gest “deniers” are get­ting ahead of themselves.

George Mon­biont – never heard of him until this past week – is out with another ‘we got a prob­lem’ arti­cle in the Guardian today as he frets over the dam­age being done to the reli­gion of global warm­ing [and his career] by the actions and incom­pe­tence of the sci­en­tific com­mu­nity. Inter­est­ing that other than his buried apol­ogy in a com­ment attached to his sar­cas­tic arti­cle yes­ter­day, he – George Mon­biont – accepts no blame for the fraud that has been per­pe­trated. This rat bailed and is now adding the sci­en­tists to his list of “scum­bag” cli­mate skeptics.

Read the rest of this entry »

There are sev­eral updates from folks review­ing the CRU soft­ware code that paint a deves­tat­ing pic­ture of the sci­ence of global warm­ing (More below). As I read these, I keep com­ing back to the 1960 date. Newer data did not bear out global warm­ing which global warm­ing advo­cates had staked their careers. There­fore they played with it and made it up to get the results they wanted. What they seem to miss in this sci­en­tific fraud is that the newer data might be more relaible and that instead of it being wrong, maybe their old data and the entire approach or method­ol­ogy was the problem. 

The code doc­u­men­ta­tion and write read me files releaseed last week are so incred­i­bly unpro­fes­sional to be almost unbe­lie­ve­able. They raise big red flags about what was tran­spir­ing. Didn’t any­one ever look at the code?!

Read the rest of this entry »

A lot of folks are look­ing at the CRU Code that lays the foun­da­tion for the fraud of global warm­ing. Bishop Hill has a grow­ing list of find­ings (below). Bore Patch offers another take (above).

Read the rest of this entry »

Global Warm­ing With the Lid Off (Wall Street Jour­nal)
Sub­ti­tle is “The emails that reveal an effort to hide the truth about cli­mate sci­ence..” WSJ writes: “How­ever, we do now have hun­dreds of emails that give every appear­ance of tes­ti­fy­ing to con­certed and coör­di­nated efforts by lead­ing cli­ma­tol­o­gists to fit the data to their con­clu­sions while attempt­ing to silence and dis­credit their crit­ics. In the depart­ment of incon­ve­nient truths, this one surely deserves a closer look by the media, the U.S. Con­gress and other inves­tiga­tive bodies.”

Edito­r­ial: Hid­ing Evi­dence of Global Cool­ing (Wash­ing­ton Times)
Con­clu­sion: “These rev­e­la­tions of fudged sci­ence should have a cool­ing effect on global-​warming hys­te­ria and the pan­icked poli­cies that are being pushed for­ward to address the unproven theory.”