Exposed scientific messages show gravity is a fraud
Carbon Fixated does a lovely job putting the global-warming emails stolen from the University of East Anglia in perspective. In exposing correspondence involving Issac Newton and other 17th-century researchers, he shows them to have been altering papers, shielding data from the public and agreeing to publish incorrect data.
Obviously the only conclusion to draw is that they foisted a giant fraud on a gullible public.
If you own any shares in companies that produce reflecting telescopes, use differential and integral calculus, or rely on the laws of motion, I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the calculus myth has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after volumes of Newton’s private correspondence were compiled and published.
Comments
Jay,
Your response reminds me of the awkward moment in every sitcom when the TV mom confronts the TV dad with a serious issue and the TV dad cracks a joke.
Posted by: Dan | November 23, 2009 7:09 PM
A funny joke jay, but
Your missing the big story and thats the file of code that was found in the emails:
Plots (1 at a time) yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD
; reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
"Jones wrote that, in compiling new data, he had “just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline,” according to a leaked e-mail, which the author confirmed was genuine"
Source:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/cru-emails-may-be-open-to-interpretation-but-commented-code-by-the-programmer-tells-the-real-story/
Posted by: Jake | November 23, 2009 9:37 PM
A quick read of "Jake's" posting might lead one to believe that he has a point. I suspect, however, any point is on the top of his head.
An explanation From the blog RealClimate of the statements that he quotes reveals that there is no sinister conspiracy at work, just good science:
"Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “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) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
Posted by: Stuart Levine | November 23, 2009 11:48 PM
Stuart & Jay,
You know what they say about toothpaste and putting it back in the tube? These revelations on the politics of "climate science" do change everything. For one, it shows the world the climate models are snake oil. They are great for producing the numbers the alarmists want to advertise but useless for explaining changes in climate as they actually occur.
Posted by: Dan | November 24, 2009 8:26 AM
What has bothered me about AGW is that its proponents have always refused debate on its merits, saying instead "the debate is over", or "you're stupid".
In ordinary science, these things also happen, but the difference is that with AGW politicians have already selected the winner and abetted the suppression of opposing views. Of course, as we now see, politicians are as hopeless in choosing a winner in the market of ideas as they are in the free market.
Posted by: J Story | November 24, 2009 1:08 PM
Skeptics and conspiracy buffs need to understand that even without any CRU data nor the publications of it scientists, there are MULTIPLE lines of evidence for AGW:
1) UAH, RSS, and GISS show warming
2) Rapidly warming Arctic
3) Rapidly decreasing sea ice extent
4) Rapidly thinning sea ice
5) Rising ocean heat content
6) Cooling stratosphere
7) Net increase in downwelling LW
8 ) Net decreasing TOA LW emission
9) Increased species migrations/extinctions
10) Increased severe weather occurrences
11) Glacier mass loss and retreats increasing
12) Rising sea levels
13) Most importantly: rapidly rising human emissions of GHGs that have not been seen in millions of years.
None of these things read emails and have decided to play along in a massive international conspiracy.
Scott A. Mandia, Professor - Meteorology
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/
Posted by: Scott A. Mandia | November 25, 2009 8:16 PM