Man Made Global Warming exposed as the Big Lie!

Discussion in 'The Science Forum' started by Semper_Flexibilis, Nov 20, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:


    "The University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Centre appears to have suffered a security breach earlier today, when an unknown hacker apparently downloaded 1079 e-mails and 72 documents of various types and published them to an anonymous FTP server. These files appear to contain highly sensitive information that, if genuine, could prove extremely embarrassing to the authors of the e-mails involved. Those authors include some of the most celebrated names among proponents of the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW)."

    "Some of the most embarrassing e-mails are attributed to Philip Jones, the Director of the CRU; Keith Briffa, his assistant; Michael E. Mann of the University of Virginia; Malcolm Hughes at the University of Arizona; and others. One such e-mail makes references to the famous "hockey-stick" graph published by Mann in the journal Nature:

    I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998."

    "As embarrassing as the e-mails are, some of the documents are more embarrassing. They include a five-page PDF document titled The Rules of the Game, that appears to be a primer for propagating the AGW message to the average subject/resident of the United Kingdom. The document suggests that it is a precis of a longer document housed at the Web site of the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs."

    Ooop! :D

  2. Cheers!!!!! :D :D
  3. I will be more than a little interested to see if this turns out to be true.....
  4. Well well:

    Manipulation of evidence:

    Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

    Suppression of evidence:

    squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process.

    Now where have we seen such behaviours before?
  5. Ord_Sgt

    Ord_Sgt RIP

    Oh my sainted aunt. That's got to be embarrassing. I can't say I'm surprised though. Cue the usual suspects saying its all a conspiracy by the oil companies.
  6. "No, hush, keep quiet, don't forget the taxes we're making..............." an anonymous Treasury official was allegedly heard to mutter.
  7. Ord_Sgt

    Ord_Sgt RIP

    The emails make interesting reading. Whenever they make a ridiculous remark or comment the backwards and forwards emails seeking to hide it and dismiss contradiction is shocking.

    I don't have time to go through them all tonight and link them together, but I'm pretty sure some one will.

    A few reputations about to go west I think.
  8. All over the US media tonight and the emails are confimed as genuine…

    "…In an exclusive interview in Investigate magazine's TGIF Edition, Phil Jones, the head of the Hadley CRU, confirmed that the leaked data is real.…",2933,576009,00.html

  9. Don't worry Ord_Sgt, our American cousins who in general haven't bought into the Man Made Climate Change religion are devouring this stuff as we speak… :twisted:
  10. Ord_Sgt

    Ord_Sgt RIP

    I'm beginning to think this is a bit of a hoax, because if this is what the climate change lobby have to offer then they are on a hiding to nothing.

    The emails are so full of ifs, buts, maybes and that doesn't fit so lets change it so it does.

    I don't know the names involved, and all their details are in the emails, but lets see how this washes out tomorrow.

    An example of the chasing of grants, if its true...

    i was going to black out names etc, but I got it from the internet, so plenty of others can as well.
  11. And what a surprise that the CRU is a government body.

    Lies from this government? Shocking.
  12. From: Phil Jones
    To: ray bradley ,mann@[snipped], mhughes@
    Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
    Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
    Cc: k.briffa@[snipped],t.osborn@[snipped]
    Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

    Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

    Thanks for the comments, Ray.

    Cheers, Phil
    Prof. Phil Jones
    Climatic Research Unit

    From: Tom Wigley [...]
    To: Phil Jones [...]
    Subject: 1940s
    Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
    Cc: Ben Santer [...]
    Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that theland also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).
    So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips—higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
    Removing ENSO does not affect this.
    It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.
    Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH—just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
    The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note – from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not)—but not really enough.
    So … why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.)
    This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.

    From: Kevin Trenberth
    To: Michael Mann
    Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
    Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
    Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

    Hi all

    Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.

    This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

    Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)

    The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.***