Hackede CRU-mails

Jeg har netop erfaret, at et videnskabeligt arbejde af Lindzen og Choi efter peer review (videnskabeligt checket), er blevet offentliggjort i et videnskabeligt anerkendt tidsskrift.

Dette arbejde, som har strakt sig over 20 år, viser endegyldigt, at varmestrålingen fra Jorden ikke bliver tilbageholdt i Jordens atmosfære, som IPCC's klimavidenskabsmænds modeller forudser, at den skulle gøre, men tværtimod trænger igennem, som den altid har gjort - måske endda så godt og vel. Lindzen og Choi har simpelt hen målt gennemtrængningen. Dette er sket ved satellitmåling - og disse målinger viser en stigende graf, hvorimod modellerne viser faldende graf. Lindzen og Choi er ingenlunde et par klamphuggere udi i faget, men absolutte notabiliteter inden for klimavidenskaben, ja der er sågar kloge folk, der påstår, at ingen klimavidenskabsmand ved mere om denne videnskabsgren end Lindzen.

Det er et ret ligegyldigt debatindlæg uden...

"it looks like climate change skeptics have finally found their voice. And scientists and politicians endorsing dramatic limits on economic growth to limit carbon dioxide have been reminded where the burden of proof properly lies. "

CBH Du skriver: ""Could you explain what exactly "will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures" means"?

Hmm .. tjah vui kunne jo tage eksemplet du allerede HAR fået 2 dec kl 23.48, udsnit:

"

Phil,

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 the
land 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.

"

De snakker altså om HADCRUTs temperatursæt, den nye version. Comprende?

Wigley skriver til Jones:

"if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
then this would be significant for the global mean"

Wigley sjusser sig altså frem til en nedtoning af 1940 varmepeak med "say 0,15K". HADCRUT temp.

Er dette ikke konkret nok til dig CBH?? Jeg tror godt dine læsere har fanget den, og så er det ok med mig hvis du lige skal bruge lidt mere tid.

Og wigley siger

"then this would be significant for the global Mean".

Nice, Wigley, så er der altså en god grund til at gøre det. CBH: wakie wakie :-)

Og videre:

"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"

Vi får altså SKÅRET UD I PAP, at de 0,15 K INTET har med videnskab at gøre, det er noget han har valgt "deliberately".
Fordi:

"I think one needs to have some form of ocean blib to explain the land blib".

Altså: Det ville se forkert ud hvis der ikke var et ocean blib når nu der er et land blib.

Og så viste jeg i indlæg fra ovenfor "fudge faktor" fra Briffas træresultater.

Jeg kan ikke i alle tilfælde sige nøjagtigt hvilke programmer er brugt til hvilke træserier, men mange af de korrigerende programmer ligger i folderen "Mann". Manns før og efter tal viser jo også at træserierne godt nok har undergået den helt store forvandling. http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/vedhaeftninger/mannaverage.jpg

Helt tilfældigt, ik?

CBH, jeg tror dine læsere har fanget hvad dette går ud på, det er det vigtigste for mig.

Jeg beklager det lidt grovkornede sprogbrug fra min side

"

Tom.

PS Re CR, I do not know the best way to handle the specifics of the
editoring. Hans von Storch is partly to blame -- he encourages the
publication of crap science 'in order to stimulate debate'. 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.

I think we could get a large group of highly credentialed scientists to
sign such a letter -- 50+ people.

Note that I am copying this view only to Mike Hulme and Phil Jones.
Mike's idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not
work -- must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually
fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer,
etc. I have heard that the publishers are not happy with von Storch, so
the above approach might remove that hurdle too.

De Radikales leder, Margrethe Vestager, kalder sagen »pinlig«.

»Skaden er allerede sket. Min mailboks er fyldt med mails om, at det hele nok skyldes solpletter og andre ting,« siger hun og kræver, at statsministeren sætter Thor Pedersen på plads. SFs klimaordfører, Anne Grete Holmsgaard, kalder udmeldingerne »giftige« set i lyset af, at Thor Pedersen som Folketingets formand skal åbne en konference for parlamentarikere den 16. december.

»Med den kasket på kan man ikke sige hvad som helst. Det sender forvirrende signaler,« siger hun.

DF-leder Pia Kjærsgaard kaldte til gengæld Thor Pedersen for »lidt af en helt« og mente, at han talte på vegne af store grupper i alle partier.

Boe Carslund-Sørensen skrev:
Fra JP, debat:

Debatten er afsluttet

http://jp.dk/opinion/breve/article1905298.ece

Prøv at undersøg på nettet hvad opfattelsen af denne artikle er og kom tilbage og fortæl mig det !

Frank Lansner skrev:
IPCC, nu er det NOK:


IPCC
-formidler grafer der er vendt på hovedet,
-formidler resultater om UHI hvor forfatteren ikke kan addere og iøvrigt ikke kan sortere byer i hhv land og by,
-formidler historiske data hvor der bruges computer programmer der selv tilfører varme trend på ethvert data set der bruges,
-formidler historiske grafer de har fundet på nettet uden at orientere amatør-forfatteren
-formidler data hvor varme peak stort set kan tilskrives ét træ og bruger så denne undersøgelse i stort set alle undersøgelser i 10 år
osvosv og Nu:
IPCC har - som BBC gengiver det - "taget fejl", har gengivet at gletchere er truet i år 2035 selvom deres reference havde skrevet år 2350!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8387737.stm

Hvor meget har IPCC lov til af krampagtige budskaber? Og hvorfor er hele "peer reveiw maskinen" sat på stand by og lader disse fuldstændigt ebberød bank "resultater" gå glat igennem?

En ekspert kalder IPCC´s syn på Himalayahs gletchere for "En håndbog i fejl om gletchere".

Her iøvrigt en ok artikel: Hvad prøver Global warming tilhængere at skjule?
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/12/04/john-lott-climate-gate-secret-data/

Så meget postyr over ingenting

Tak for linket. Det ser ikke ud til, at der er afsløret noget epokegørende nyt

No longer able to ignore the scandal and its efforts to quell the furor failing, the United Nations has announced it will launch a probe into the release of more than a thousand emails from the world's top scientists. The contents of the archive, illegally obtained and released on the Internet two weeks ago, have caused an uproar in the debate about manmade climate change.
Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), initially dismissed the event saying the scientists involved could not have influenced the IPCC's work. He said last week, "The processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report

Dette betyder, at stort set alle peer-reviewede artikler smides væk. Tilbage er så hvad Climteaudit, Whats up with that, Heartland Institut, American Interprise Institut, Fraser Institut , ExxonMobile og andre olie finansierede tredjeparts organisationer og de skeptisk blogs kan producere

From: "Mick Kelly" <m.kelly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Shell
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 13:31:00 +0100
Reply-to: m.kelly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: t.oriordan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.o'riordan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Mike
Had a very good meeting with Shell yesterday. Only a minor part of the
agenda, but I expect they will accept an invitation to act as a strategic
partner and will contribute to a studentship fund though under certain
conditions. I now have to wait for the top-level soundings at their end
after the meeting to result in a response. We, however, have to discuss
asap what a strategic partnership means, what a studentship fund is, etc,
etc. By email? In person?
I hear that Shell's name came up at the TC meeting. I'm ccing this to Tim
who I think was involved in that discussion so all concerned know not to
make an independent approach at this stage without consulting me!
I'm talking to Shell International's climate change team but this approach
will do equally for the new foundation as it's only one step or so off
Shell's equivalent of a board level. I do know a little about the Fdn and
what kind of projects they are looking for. It could be relevant for the
new building, incidentally, though opinions are mixed as to whether it's
within the remit.
Regards
Mick
______________________________________________

Mick Kelly Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ
United Kingdom
Tel: 44-1603-592091 Fax: 44-1603-507784
Email: m.kelly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/tiempo/

From: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Simon.Shackley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: industrial and commercial contacts
Date: Mon Jan 10 17:01:32 2000

Simon,

I have talked with Tim O'Riordan and others here today and Tim has a wealth of contacts he is prepared to help with. Four specific ones from Tim are:

- Charlotte Grezo, BP Fuel Options (possibly on the Assessment Panel. She is also on the ESRC Research Priorities Board), but someone Tim can easily talk with. There are others in BP Tim knows too.
- Richard Sykes, Head of Environment Division at Shell International
- Chris Laing, Managing Director, Laing Construction (also maybe someone at Bovis)
- ??, someone high-up in Unilever whose name escapes me.

And then Simon Gerrard here in our Risk Unit suggested the following personal contacts:

- ??, someone senior at AMEC Engineering in Yarmouth (involved with North Sea industry and wind energy)
- Richard Powell, Director of the East of England Development Board

You can add these to your list and I can ensure that Tim and Simon feed the right material through once finalised.

I will phone tomorrow re. the texts.

Cheers,

Mike

At 20:30 07/01/00 BST, you wrote:
>dear colleagues
>
>re: List of Industrial and Commercial Contacts to Elicit Support
>from for the Tyndall Centre
>
>This is the list so far. Our contact person is given in brackets
>afterwards. There is some discussion on whether we
>should restict ourselves to board level contacts - hence Dlugolecki
>is not board level but highly knowledgeable about climate change.
>I think people such as that, who are well known for their climate
>change interests, are worth writing to for support. There may be
>less value in writing to lesser known personnel at a non-board level.
>
>SPRU has offered to elicit support from their energy programme
>sponsors which will help beef things up. (Frans: is the Alsthom
>contact the same as Nick Jenkin's below? Also, do you have a BP
>Amoco contact? The name I've come up with is Paul Rutter, chief
>engineer, but he is not a personal contact]
>
>We could probably do with some more names from the financial sector.
>Does anyone know any investment bankers?
>
>Please send additional names as quickly as possible so we can
>finalise the list.
>
>I am sending a draft of the generic version of the letter eliciting
>support and the 2 page summary to Mike to look over. Then this can be
>used as a basis for letter writing by the Tyndall contact (the person
>in brackets).
>
>Mr Alan Wood CEO Siemens plc [Nick Jenkins]
>Mr Mike Hughes CE Midlands Electricity (Visiting Prof at UMIST) [Nick
>Jenkins]
>Mr Keith Taylor, Chairman and CEO of Esso UK (John
>Shepherd]
>Mr Brian Duckworth, Managing Director, Severn-Trent Water
>[Mike Hulme]
>Dr Jeremy Leggett, Director, Solar Century [Mike Hulme]
>Mr Brian Ford, Director of Quality, United Utilities plc [Simon
>Shackley]
>Dr Andrew Dlugolecki, CGU [Jean Palutikof]
>Dr Ted Ellis, VP Building Products, Pilkington plc [Simon Shackley]
>Mr Mervyn Pedalty, CEO, Cooperative Bank plc [Simon Shackley]
>
>
>Possibles:
>Mr John Loughhead, Technology Director ALSTOM [Nick Jenkins]
>Mr Edward Hyams, Managing Director Eastern Generation [Nick
>Jenkins]
>Dr David Parry, Director Power Technology Centre, Powergen
>[Nick Jenkins]
>Mike Townsend, Director, The Woodland Trust [Melvin
>Cannell]
>Mr Paul Rutter, BP Amoco [via Terry Lazenby, UMIST]
>
>With kind regards
>
>Simon Shackley

galoredk skrev:
Betryggende at vide at klimaalarmister med den ene hånd forsøger at gå efter manden og påstå at skeptikeres forskning er ugyldig fordi enkelte har modtaget støtte fra et olieselskab alt imens alarmisterne selv sponsoreres af op til flere af slagsen.

Gubisoul skrev:
Men er det ikke ligegyldigt Jakob? du går jo ind for dramatisk befolkningsreduktion.

Altså så i din termonologi, så er der faktisk intet galt med at der kommer katastrofale følger af klimaforandringer.
De vil jo netop føre til dit ultimative mål, nemlig færre mennesker på kloden.

Basalt set er det jo heller ikke kloden vi prøver og passe på, men mennesket.
Kloden er dybest set ligeglad med om vi er skyld i mere varme, mere kulde etc.
Kloden skal nok overleve menneskets påvirkninger.

Hvis videnskaben og IPCC var infiltreret og delvist betalt af olieselskaber, så ville det sætte hele sagen i et nyt lys.'

Det kunne muligvis forklare, hvorfor det kunne lykkes at hacke dem, og det kunne forklare, hvorfor de skriver angribelige ting i mails, og det kunne forklare, hvorfor IPCC har så svage forudsigelser med hensyn til havvandsstigning og worst case scenarier i forhold til NASA.

Hvis man vil være objektivt skeptisk og ikke bare imod den bestående videnskab og CO2-teorien, så må det bestemt også være en mulighed, der skal tages i betragtning. Konsekvenserne af GW kan måske blive langt mere ødelæggende, end vi er blevet advaret om af IPCC.