Rush Limbaugh Makes The Connection

Now we know why he is right 99% of the time. Rush Limbaugh nails it in one by comparing anthropogenic climate change/global warming and whatever it's going to be called next, to the big tobacco scandal in the 90's.

And they both tie in to manipulating the research data.

When is science not science, even though the methods may be sound? When the data is being withheld from other researchers and the data is manipulated to support a preconceived notion, or to make something out to be not as bad as it really is.

On his radio show yesterday, America's truth detector and Doctor of Democracy played this exchange between the leftist, state run media hack Andrea Mitchell and Congressman Ed Markey:

MARKEY:  The evidence is overwhelming.  There are a few people who are still fighting it in the same way that there were people still fighting the science of whether or not tobacco caused lung cancer but we could not rely upon that small minority when the overwhelmingly majority said the fumes in human beings were killing them in the same way that we new see that the fumes going into the atmosphere is having a dramatically negative impact on our planet.

This is why you should always know at least a little of our current history. By comparing the climate change hoax to big tobacco, Markey unwittingly committed the weak analogy logical fallacy and Rush caught it (emphasis added):

RUSH:  That's their new argument.  Now they're trying to compare these two things when there's no comparison.  If you want a comparison to tobacco companies, I brilliantly came up with this last week.  What nailed the tobacco companies?  What was it?  Remember when the CEOs of Big Tobacco were up testifying and it was discovered that they had lied about their research. They had lied about the impact of smoking on health. They had made up studies which showed that there was no connection to smoking and respiratory health and heart disease, and they had lied about it.  And when the lie had been uncovered there was a whistle-blower that went on 60 Minutes, sat behind the black screen, blew the whistle and that was the end of it.

This is the crux of the matter behind the anthropogenic climate change hoax, not the science, which is sound, but, the manipulation of said data from the science. Science demands that evidence be verifiable and results be reproducible in the real world, not ten, fifty or a hundred years into the future; unless you have a time machine that everyone is unaware of. Data should also be freely shared between other scientists and not forced to use the FOIA to get it.

We now know, thanks to a whistle blower who leaked emails and program code, that the climate data was being manipulated by top climate scientists at East Anglia's Hadley Climate Research Unit. Just like researchers did to make it look like cigarette smoke was not the cause or played a role in lung cancer.


And the science is never settled. They come to a general agreement, but, scientists always leave room to change that agreement should any new evidence be found and all it takes is one person to do it.


This is the danger of conducting research, using the scientific method, when there is a preconceived notion. What happens, because scientists are human too, is that evidence is being sought out to support the preconceived notion and any evidence, no matter how overwhelming it refutes, is almost always discarded, hidden or destroyed.

Read the entire transcript here: Markey on Climate and Tobacco; Hoaxer Hansen Does Letterman

Geoff Jenkins - The G. Gordon Liddy of Climate Gate

Watergate was a political scandal that had many twists and turns. Ultimately, the event forced the resignation of Richard Nixon and led to several indictments of White House officials known as the Plumbers, with G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt at its head. The recent events surrounding emails and documents being leaked by some whistle blower at the East Anglia Hadley Climate Research Unit, which incidentally is hot on the heals of the Copenhagen Conference, clearly show that Climate gate is not unlike the Watergate scandal with Geoff Jenkins at the center.

Who is Geoff Jenkins? In 2004, the UK Guardian described him as "the man Tony Blair turns to for the facts about climate change." But, to really know who he is, because he is not one of the top names in the history of the anthropogenic global warming movement, we need to go back to 1988.

Geoff Jenkins started his climate prediction business when the IPCC was created in 1988, with Sir John Houghton leading it; Jenkins' job was to put data together from science to create the Group One Report in the 90's for the IPCC. In May of 1990, Jenkins was among the first people to staff the newly created Hadley Center and after the Rio de Janiero Earth Summit in 1992, Hadley moved into the policy area and researched ways to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, which ultimately led to the Kyoto Agreement in 1997. Three years later, Hadley's mission statement changed again due to flooding in the UK when the UK's environmental department set up a Climate Impacts Program to cope with adaptation.

And Geoff Jenkins was at the center of all of this.

Now that we have revisited the brief history of Hadley and Geoff Jenkins, let's move on to the leaked emails and documents and we will revisit him later to tie it together.

Sometime during the third week of November, a whistle blower at East Anglia's Hadley Climate Research Unit (CRU) uploaded emails and documents in a 61 megabyte compressed file to a message board. A message was attached to the post that said something to the effect that the climate was too important to keep the material secret and the file would be up for a short period of time.

The file went viral and spread around the Internet so fast, the USS Enterprise would look like a Model-T in a race. Climate Audit was shut down because it couldn't handle the bandwidth usage and a mirror site was created to handle the enormous traffic. Torrent sites had it and other obscure websites uploaded the file.

Then people began to scour through the emails and had a look at Oz behind the curtain:

- Michael Mann talks about ruining a peer review journal (1047388489).

- Tim Osborn discusses how to alter data to stop a cooling trend (939154709).

- Phil Jones asks his colleagues to delete FOIA requests (1212063122).

- Email showing that Greenpeace is involved in drafting a letter to The Times (872202064).

You can read the rest at the Doug Ross Journal.

At any rate, what these leaked emails reveal is a history of academic fraud that has led many governments to enact laws that have, or will be, costly; Spain is realizing this already. Keith Briffa's fraudulent tree ring report, which Michael Mann relied heavily on to create an equally bogus graph, known as the Hockey Stick Chart was cited numerous times in the IPCC's reports. What they failed to include was the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period, which would have shown a completely different conclusion.

Michael Mann is a contributor at Real Climate's blog. In October of 2005, Scientific American called Real Climate, "A refreshing antidote to the political and economic slants that commonly color and distort news coverage of topics like the greenhouse effect, air quality, natural disasters and global warming."

Getting back to Geoff Jenkins, slowly.

The significance of Real Climate is that it's hosted by Environmental Media Services. Activist Cash describes EMS:

If you’ve ever been advised to steer clear of a food, beverage, or other consumer product based on the claims of a nonprofit organization, you’ve likely been “spun” by Fenton’s multi-million-dollar message machine -- and Environmental Media Services (EMS) has probably been the messenger.

EMS is the communications arm of leftist public relations firm Fenton Communications. Based in Washington, in the same office suite as Fenton, EMS claims to be “providing journalists with the most current information on environmental issues.” A more accurate assessment might be that it spoon-feeds the news media sensationalized stories, based on questionable science, and featuring activist “experts,” all designed to promote and enrich David Fenton’s paying clients, and build credibility for the nonprofit ones. It’s a clever racket, and EMS & Fenton have been running it since 1994.

Arlie Schardt founded EMS (now called Science Communication Network) in 1994. Twenty years before that, he was a writer for Sports Illustrated and left the magazine to lead the Environmental Defense Fund. Interestingly, he was also in charge of the Tides Center when it was led by non other than Wade Rathke of the now discredited ACORN.

Now we get to Geoff Jenkins.

In the mid 90's, a report was issued using faked data that still didn't show any warming effect between 1995-96. In an attempt to explain it away, he made a suggestion that there was a NAO (North Atlantic Oscillation, aka La Nina) reversal.

On March 18, 1996, Michael Fumento caught the scandalous suggestion and wrote an article in the Washington Times:

Global-warming enthusiasts desperately grasp at anything to prove their case. In early January, the Climatic Research Unit at England's University of East Anglia made headlines, including the New York Times, with a preliminary report saying 1995 was the hottest year on record. But their data were for only 11 months. Rather than risk December's temperatures spoiling everything, they jumped the gun and sent out their press releases.

Their fears were fulfilled when December's average temperature came in at the lowest in 17 years. "It was a pretty ordinary year," said NASA scientist John Christy, who has been analyzing satellite data on temperature since 1979. And James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who pretty much started the whole global-warming scare, admits his study of land areas – where the effects of global warming would be most severe – revealed that 1995 was about 0.02 degrees celsius cooler than 1990.

In a 1996 email to Phil Jones, Geoff Jenkins writes:

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.

I have been discussing with David P and suggest the following:

1. By 20 Dec we will have land and sea data up to Nov

2. David (?) computes the December land anomaly based on 500hPa
heights up to 20 Dec.

3. We assume that Dec SST anomaly is the same as Nov

4. We can therefore give a good estimate of 1996 global temps by 20
Dec

5. We feed this selectively to Nick Nuttall (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??

6. We explain that data is provisional and how the data has been
created so early (ie the estimate for Dec) and also

7. We explain why the globe is 0.23k (or whatever the final figure is)
cooler than 95 (NAO reversal, slight La Nina). Also that global annual
avg is only accuirate to a few hundredths of a degree (we said this
last year - can we be more exact, eg PS/MS 0.05K or is this to big??)

8. FROM NOW ON WE ANSWER NO MORE ENQUIRIES ABOUT 1996 GLOBAL TEMPS BUT
EXPLAIN THAT IT WILL BE RELEASED IN JANUARY.

9. We relesae the final estimate on 20 Jan, with a joint UEA/MetO
press release. It may not evoke any interest by then.

10. For questions after the release to Nuttall, (I late Dec, early
Jan) we give the same answer as we gave him.

Are you happy with this, or can you suggest something better (ie
simpler)? I know it sound a bit cloak-and-dagger but its just meant to
save time in the long run.

Im copying this to DEP and CKF also for comments.

Cheers

Geoff

Jenkins' "cunning plan" was to spoon feed selected information to Nick Nuttal, who is the head spokesman for the United Nations Environment Program, for his articles. The "via Oz?" comment in regards to this "cunning plan", is most likely referring to Senior Research Scientist at Australia's Climate Forecasting Group, Neville Nichols.

By selecting which media sources to spoon feed selected information to, Jenkins would have caused a frenzy. After the real temperature data was issued, "We relesae (sic) the final estimate on 20 Jan, with a joint UEA/MetO press release. It may not evoke any interest by then."

The fringe, state run, lamestream media can spin this topic however they want. However, much like an event caught on video, nobody can deny the blatant fraud that was occurring all these years. We "climate change deniers" knew that these hucksters were "cooking the books" all along and the emails should not be the central issue, but the code that was created to alter the data is, the emails merely reinforce the fraud that was going on behind closed doors.

Admission Of Guilt - Scientists Admit They Dumped Data

Scientists at the University of East Anglia have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit CRU was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation. The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building. Read the rest at FoxNews

EPA Relied Heavily On Hadley CRU Data

With all the hullabaloo about the leaked emails from East Anglia's Hadley Climate Research Unit, one aspect of it that's not being talked about too much is agencies, such as the EPA and their reliance on that data to make energy policy. The continued analysis of the code contained within the leaked information clearly shows that fraud was the flavor of the day. Not only does it prove that data was deliberately being manipulated, but, databases were clearly in disarray and what one email from Phil Jones seems to indicate that he wanted material destroyed when skeptics discovered that the UK had a freedom of information act.

What one has to understand is that Hadley CRU wields enormous influence in outside circles and purportedly has the largest climate database in the world; it's models were used in the IPCC's 2007 report, which the EPA has acknowledged it relied upon very heavily when making conclusions that carbon dioxide emissions are a danger to public health.

As more and more information is being brought out by coders looking at the data, it seems that much has to be explained in those emails and data sets. But, what seems to be going around in the state run, fringe media is the legality of these emails being "hacked" and the predictable downplaying of its contents.

What these reporters are ignoring to ask is four important questions:

1. Is this the first time data has escaped Hadley?

2. Since the emails and data go back a number of years, how would a hacker know which emails were relevant and which emails were not?

3. Since the Copenhagen conference is fast approaching, isn't it a little odd that these emails were "hacked" and released to the world?

4. Why hasn't any investigation been called for?

Of course, we can't expect the fringe media to ask questions that may lead to unwanted answers.

Even though Senator Inhofe has called for an investigation, whether or not he will get the support of other Congressional members is the question. Many politicians have been bamboozled into believing the anthropogenic global warming hoax and are not likely to change their view points, particularly since a new revenue stream is in the works with cap and trade legislation.

In 1988, this entire issue was started by Maurice Strong and further propagated by James Hansen with a preconceived notion that the modern human industrial population was causing the earth's temperature to rise. Preconceived notions are supposed to be anathema to scientists, because it tends to send them looking for evidence to support it and discarding any that disproves it. What these emails and data sets show is that these scientists were doing everything they could to manipulate data and, in Phil Jones' own words, hide the decline when results were showing the opposite.

Science also demands sharing of data. Evidence must be verifiable and results must be reproducible in the real world by other scientists, this is how it goes through the filters to keep everyone honest in the process. However, this didn't seem to be the case with the Hadley scientists. Many times data had to be obtained from skeptical scientists through the Freedom of Information Act, which seems to indicate that something was trying to be hidden.

Eugene Robinson's Hot Air

Eugene Robinson's article at Real Clear Politics is long on spin and short on facts. Let's pick it apart:

Stop hyperventilating, all you climate change deniers. The purloined e-mail correspondence published by skeptics last week -- portraying some leading climate researchers as petty, vindictive and tremendously eager to make their data fit accepted theories -- does not prove that global warming is a fraud.

We "climate change deniers" are not saying that global warming is a fraud, we are saying the junk science used to purvey it is the cause and the fraud, so I guess, in a sense, global warming is man made considering that the emails prove that Michael Mann, et al tried to hide the decline and it's not just the emails, it's the code that is damning. Incidentally, Mr. Robinson which is it, climate change or global warming?

If I'm wrong, somebody ought to tell the polar ice caps that they're free to stop melting.

Really? Real science says that it's cyclical and currently they are building up in some places and decreasing in others.

That said, the e-mail episode is more than a major embarrassment for the scientists involved. Most Americans are convinced that climate change is real -- a necessary prerequisite for the kinds of huge economic and behavioral adjustments we would have to make to begin seriously limiting carbon emissions. But consensus on the nature and scope of the problem will dissipate, and fast, if experts try to obscure the fact that there's much about the climate they still don't know.

More mindless "consensus" claptrap. Of course climate change is real, it's been going on for 4.5 billion years and throwing money at a non existent phenomenon isn't going to 'fix' anything, but it will destroy the economy if this preposterous cap and tax bill gets passed and signed into law fast. As for "scientific consensus", there is no such thing. Let me repeat that: there is no such thing. When are you climate change alarmists going to realize that? But, if you want to play the consensus game, may a I direct your attention to the Global Warming Petition Project?

Here's what happened: Someone hacked into the servers at one of the leading academic centers in the field -- the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England -- and filched a trove of e-mails and documents, which have been posted on numerous Web sites maintained by climate skeptics.

Nobody hacked into anything, Mr. Robinson. If that were the case, then why hasn't an official investigation been started yet? Those emails go back a number of years, how would a hacker know which emails were relevant and which emails were not? This isn't the first time data has been leaked by Hadley CRU, ask Stephen Mcyntire at Climate Audit. Then there is the timing of this event. Since the Copenhagan climate conference is looming, don't you think it's a bit odd that these emails were leaked?

Phil Jones, the head of the Climatic Research Unit, released a statement Wednesday saying, "My colleagues and I accept that some of the published e-mails do not read well." That would be an example of British understatement.

"Don't read well"? That's beyond any understatement, considering that violence was suggested by one "scientist".

In one message sent to a long list of colleagues, Jones speaks of having completed a "trick" with recent temperature data to "hide the decline." The word "trick" is hardly a smoking gun -- scientists use it to refer to clever but perfectly legitimate ways of handling data. But the "hide the decline" part refers to a real issue among climate researchers called the "divergence problem."

Ah, yes it is Mr. Robinson and here's where you climate change alarmists are missing the entire point. The code (IDL) clearly shows that the data was altered involving data manipulation going back to the 60's to make it look as if there was a warming trend.

The rest of Mr. Robinson's article is more claptrap and apologist rhetoric that is always vomited by those who venerate anyone that creates a feel good campaign. These scientists are the epitome of why PHD means Piled High and Deep and should have their credentials revoked, because this is clearly academic fraud.

ClimateGate Source Code Clearly Altered

By Noel Sheppard As NewsBusters has been reporting since the ClimateGate scandal first broke last Friday, America's media have either been shamefully ignoring the sensitive information hacked from a British university's computer system or dishonestly telling the public there's nothing to it. If these revelations furthered the global warming myth by implicating skeptical scientists in a conspiracy to adjust temperature data while shutting out opinions contrary to their own, press outlets would likely have their science divisions poring over every e-mail and document available to find the proverbial smoking gun. Because in this instance any such research could uncover information contrary to the agenda of most news outlets, scientific editors and reporters have abdicated their investigative responsibilities in an obvious attempt to protect policies they support and advocate. With that in mind, the American Thinker's Marc Sheppard, clearly doing the media's job, examined the computer program source code available in what was hacked from this British Climate Research Unit (CRU), and discovered that this scandal is everything the global warming-obsessed media fear: Read the rest at NewsBusters