Manmade Climate Global Warming is not a Scientific Theory

You have but scratched the surface of the fraud, lies, malfeasance and outright criminal activity of a group of core climate scientists.  Indeed, the revelations of fraud, abuse, and deceit has been gaining steam over the past couple of months since the release of the CRU emails and program code.  Anyone that tells  you there is nothing to that is just trying to practice damage control - and doing so badly.

The hypothesis (you are correct itis not a theory) of AGW may be a valid one that needs to advance to the next stage - testing (no successful tests yet).  But until the fraud and deceit (and malfeasance and crimes) are rooted out and cleaned up, that is not possible.  it will remain just a grand scam partially initiated by a D student who got the teachings of his professor wrong.

How does this apply to man-made global warming?

I have never seen evidence for the theory (and neither have I looked), but I neither have I seen evidence (or even hints) that such evidence was falsified or that scientists "refused to release" anything.

I have read about the emails but couldn't find the parts many found so incriminating.

I also don't find it convincing to reject a theory just because some of its adherents (might have) release false data to support it.

I don't know if global warming happens and if it does who causes it. But I have seen so many people on both sides of the issue who know almost nothing about physics or climatology but have very strong opinions on the issue that I find it difficult to come to a conclusion.

Which data was not released and how does it prove wrong the theory of man-made global warming?

Because that is what is being done.  The analysis of the CRU letters and program code is ongoing, but Lee hits the major points of what has been found so far.

Where to begin.  I can provide links to you if you want (wait for my next article if you are not impatient).  Falsified data?  The AR4 report of the IPCC contains over a dozen instances of references to either non-existant data, or to data that does not conform to the standards set by the body.  in other words, made up (falsified) data.  And the reason it is only about a dozen now is that people are just starting to dissect the report.  The falacies have been coming out at almost 3 per week since December.  They have even started to look at the AR3 report and found significant instances of falsification. 

As for the refusal to release, that is both in the US and UK.  NASA and NCDC have refused to release their raw data despite numerous individuals and groups filing FOIA requests.  Both CRU (East Anglia) and the Met have also denied releasing their data under a similar law in the UK (so poorly written that no prosecution seems likely).  This is well documented.

It is not a theory.  It is an hypothesis that has yet to be tested successfully. The problem is that al the test models have failed to accurately predict the outcomes, so the models are wrong.  That does not mean the hypothesis is wrong, but it does show that this has not progressed past the hypothesis stage yet, and will not unless the scientists involved start actiing like scientists and not high priests of a new religion.

What data was not released?  Virtually all the raw data that was used not only in constructing the original hypothesis, but also in constructing the original Hockey stick graph (since debunked).  Again, the scientists are more than happy to release their massaged data, but until the East Anglia email leak, there was no way to determine how they arrived at the data.  That is being determined now and shows an ugly and sordid manipulation of raw data (but still not the raw data itself) that does not appear to have any basis in scientific method, but a lot of basis in making sure that a preconceived end is arrived at through the data.

As far as "proving" anything, no it does not.  It is not proof of anything, nor disproof of anything.  It is a serious flaw in the methodology and hypothesis that many are now saying is "settled science".  It is not settled.  It may be a valid hypothesis, as I have stated, but right now the only thing we do know about AGW is that it is bad science.

Just to add to this, it's worth noting that they acted illegally and wrongfully withheld the information. Of course they can't face prosecuation because they just have to avoid charges for 6 months from when they committed the crime (which isn't hard when no-one will know whether they've committed the crime in the first place)

A few months ago I was willing to lend credence to the idea that since pretty well every scientific body seemed to support man-made global warming there was a good chance they were right (although I was appalled at how much praise an inconvenient truth got after seeing it myself, with it's ridiculously biased conclusions and lack of evidence). All these revelations which undermine the credibility of the information used to obrtain these conclusions have made me consider that the conspiracy theorists might actually be onto something.

It's very revealing that since the email scandal we've had numerous reports of other dodgy evidence, since it suggests both that there are major credibility problems with the information/conclusions, and also that people simply didn't bother to check any of this before, and now that they have realised that it might not be 100% correct they've started to realise things are wrong with it. Maybe the same is the case for many other generally accepted views/theories - hardly anyone might have disagreed with them, but equally no-one might have actually checked if the claims are correct either.

About the only thing that there seems to be much agreement on is that it's getting warmer. Maybe we're a significant cause of it, maybe we're not. What does seem beyond doubt now though is that there are numerous scientists and other people who will go out of their way to make the problem out to look far worse than it should based on the data available, and this is just accepted as scientific fact by many people.

There is a discussion on one of the boards I read about if it is prosecutable.  The logic is very complicated, but the guy is a UK lawyer and says it is possible (although highly unlikely).  Here's how:

If you commit a crime (destroy data like East Anglia did), then you are free after 6 months.  But if you intend to destroy data, but fail, then you have not committed the crime of the deed, but you are guilty of conspiracy!  And since the crime has not occurred, the time limit has not begun to tick!

Well - the above is why I am not a lawyer.

The basic quote that I made can actually be for used for any hypotheses that use the Scientific Method to make it a Theory.  Manmade global warming advocates, that at this time monopolize the heads of the Raw Data collection agencies, claim this is settled science (i.e. a strong Theory).

In science a strong theory would be one that has been independently verified and reproduced multiple times using reliable empirical data.  The theory of gravity or movement of light is considered a strong theory.

The manmade global warming activists monopolize the Data and have admitted in their emails that they have been "trick of adding in the real temps to each series ... to hide the decline [in temperature]." to the raw data in order to make it fit their models.

As for hiding or releasing data these comments between Dr. Jones and other agency heads have been revealed: "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone" and, "We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind." Mr. Jones further urged Mr. Mann to join him in deleting e-mail exchanges about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) controversial assessment report (ARA): "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re [the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report]?"   One must wonder how much data was deleted forever in order to hide it.

That does not even account for the 95 of the 105 information request that the UK Guardian has uncovered that was not fulfilled by Dr. Jones at CRU.  Dr. Hanson at NASA is another activist who has stonewalled data.  Every time he does release a little data to meet the minimum requirements under a court order, he has been forced to revise his overall numbers for complete year data sets.  The UK Telegraph has just a few convenient data errors that Dr. Hanson has had to correct.

That is the major problem with hypotheses that cannot be falsified.  There is not enough of the Raw Data being released by the monopoly of data collectors to actually independently prove their theory or falsify it either.

Let me set an example to you.  I claim that I spoke to God this morning.  I and my buddy, who believes my claim, give you two security camera tapes with me talking to an image of a flaming bush.  But both of use claim to have processed the image from the original tapes through our computer imager (model).  One of us says that the original tape was copied over because I needed more space for other data and the other refuses to release theirs.

Is my hypothesis scientific or metaphysical?  If someone across the street could provide another independent tape elsewhere I would begin to change my mind.  The problem for the manmade global warming crowd is that only they have the cameras.

But global warming can be falsified. All we need is results that show that the average temperature goes down (if it remains level, it might still be global warming in the long run).

So far all the measurements have shown that, with some people claiming that scientists have disregarded data that contradicts their point of view. But that hardly makes the theory unfalsifiable.

Anyway, the inquiry showed that there has been no misconduct:

A prominent US climate scientist at the centre of the "climategate" leaked email controversy has been virtually cleared of professional misconduct by an internal university enquiry.

Michael Mann, of Penn State University, featured regularly in the more than 1000 emails that were hacked from the University of East Anglia in the UK last November. His emails and comments have since then featured in countless blogs and news articles. Some have claimed the emails reveal that mainstream climate scientists have massaged data in order to demonstrate that climate change is caused by human activities.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18474-us-climategate-scientist-all-but-cleared-of-misconduct.html

So I guess you are back to a conspiracy theory.

In the current political climate any scientist who actually has data that showed global warming isn't happening is likely to become a media sensation and an instant multimillionaire so there is little reason not to publish such data.

NASA specifically could probably save their moon mission if they had data that shows that we don't have to spend money to stop global warming but could have a moon mission for less money instead.

Where people from other universities around the world able to reproduce your results?

If yes, you might have spoken to a burning bush (which in that case would be something completely normal).

If not, you didn't.

Tell me hot to get the burning bush to appear and I'll see if I can reproduce the results. With temperatures it's easy. Somebody claims they have gone up and universities in other countries check their own results and see whether their results agree. They did. I assume that if I had well-positioned temperature measurement devices, I could reproduce the results.

And even I can see that Greenland is getting warmer:

Whether that means that water levels will rise I don't know. If the same is happening to the North Pole (i.e. ice in the water), it probably won't, as then there is more ice floating turning into water (lowering the sea level) than ice from land turning into water (raising the sea level). But if the same is also happening at the South Pole we might be in trouble.

Leauki, are you going to beleive Al jazeera about how peace loving Hamas is?  If not, why are you beleiving this whitewash?  Come on!  You are smarter than that.  Clearly the problem is in the symantics.  The emails were from 1998-99, and Mann's tenure at PSU is only from 2005.  So "technically" PSU is correct, but hardly an exhoneration.

Try a more unbiased report

not hardly.  They are being piloried and run out of town.  Did you forget the East Anglia Emails that conspired to marginalize anyone posting a contradictory paper?  There are Hundreds of papers out there that question AGW, but even you have not heard of them! (Apparently)

That is the problem.  They cant!  And why can they not?  "The dog ate my raw data" said Phil Jones.

So?  Greenland was a lot warmer 600 years ago!  And the world did not end!  Or are you one that maintains the Vikings farmed Permafrost?

And neither was there proof that anything was wrong.

What makes you think that that guy is unbiased?

So there are hundreds of papers out there that question AGW despite the fact that authors of such papers would be in trouble with the establishment?

Sounds like a typical conspiracy theory to me.

Universities seem to say the opposite. Why would so many lie?

I am one of those who maintain that the world getting warmer 600 years ago was probably not caused by CO2 emissions from 20th century industry.

Today, it is possible or even likely that it is.

You confuse "can happen naturally" with "obviously happens naturally" and "is not bad for us".

The fact is that although global warming can happen and has happened naturally, everything today points to it not happening naturally and predictions of rising sea levels make such changes bad for us, whether they are occuring or can occur naturally or not.

If global warming melts too much ice, we will have to do something about regardless of whether we caused global warming or not.

There is another question of whether we can do anything useful and a third question of whether what the Kyoto treaty proposed was useful (I think not because I don't think the climate cares whether a given CO2 molecule was produced by Americans or Indians).

yes, it is all a vast conspiracy theory, regardless of the facts presented. And you wonder why you have not heard of the otehr side rebutting them?  They have been, but the sycophantic press will not carry the other side!  Even India is scooping the US media!  It is a sad day for the American MSM, but you dont live here.  You SHOULD at least have access to other sources.  Why have you not availed yourself of them?  Even the English Press is turning against pachauri and Jones.

But yes, let's just throw out the facts as another conspiracy theory.  The only problem is - the facts remain.  What to do about the facts?  nasty thing the facts.  They get in the way of a good snow job.

Show one.  Show one that has done its own research into this and their findings.  Please link to one that has not just accepted the work of East Anglia, NCDC, or the met and done their own version of AGW.

Regardless of WHAT is causing the current warming (even if there is one since local temperature variations do not a global warming make), the results of the MWP show that the disaster scenarios portrayed by the AGW group just are plain false.  Greenland was warmer in the recent past.  It is called climate for a reason. it changes.  This whole scandal is not arguing we are not warming, only that it is not unprececented, and to date, we do not know what is wrong!

Think of the planet as a body.  it has a fever.  Why?  if you treat it for a bacterial infection when it is a virus, you are doing nothing except perhaps harm.  So what do we have?  A virus or a Bacteria?  the Truth (not the hype) is we do not know!  And the problem is we cannot know as long as the charlatans are running the propaganda mill!  They are not promoting science!  They are promoting a religion and retarding science!

No, all the studies you have looked at points to that.  But the truth is much more complex.  from monkeying the recording stations (eliminating 75% of the stations since 1990 - mostly in the cooler areas) to attempted elimination of the MWP and LIA (look at the now debunked hockey stick), to more errors than a high school students term paper (IPCC AR4).  But if you want to find the truth, it does take some digging, instead of blind belief in a bunch of faux scientitsts that have been caught with their pants down.

Yes, and when the warming spell is over (as they do all end eventually) it will refreeze.  The earth is not a static environment, In just the past 1000 years we have seen the ice caps and temperatures grown and shrink without man doing a thing.  It is the height of arrogance to think that these parasites on this planet are now running the host.  Indeed, if you look at solar activity, you find a much higher correlation between warming and solar activity than between CO2 and warming.  Mostly because history has shown that CO2 is a LAGGING indicator, not a leading one.  It has the capacity to promote warming - of a few tenths of a degree!  but once it has done its work, the negative feedbacks take over and moderate it!  That is why when Co2 was in the thousands of PPM (instead of the low hundreds), the earth did not spiral into a new venus.

The sad fact of the matter is - we can't and should not "do somethign about it" at least until we understand what "it" is and what we can do about it.  Indeed, if it is totally natural, then "doing something" about it will be harming the the parasites on the patient instead of curing the patient.  Not all bacteria in the human body is bad, and removing all of it will kill the body.

Well, if you listen to the AGW crowd, there is something we can do about it.  Revert back to stone knives and bear skins.  That will reduce our carbon foot print.  But not do much for what should be the ultimate goal - life on earth.  Kyoto was DOA to start with.  All it did was ensure that:

1. nations cheat.  Polutants have gone up in violation of the treaty in virtually every country that signed it.  And in almost all of them by a higher percentage than in the US who did not sign it.

2. organized Crime is getting rich - Yep!  That $130billion carbon EU credit market is chocked full of vigorish for organized crimes as has been documented.

3. And you are right.  The earth does not care where a molecule of polutant comes from.  So as some nations sacrafice their soverignity for the sake of the planet, others just grab the money and go.  Instead of lifting up all nations to a first world level, this movement guarantees to drop all nations to 3rd world status.  but then Al Gore and gang will get rich in the process.

Yes, but the problem is if everyone agrees that a significant cause of the warming is down to emissions and takes very costly measures to reduce these when in reality they don't have any effect then we will not only have done nothing to deal with global warming, but will also have reduced our ability to do anything about it either. Far better in such a situation to spend money on things like sea/flood defences, relocating areas, etc.

Of course you have the flipside of if emissions do contribute and we do nothing, but the problem is the first argument just doesn't seem to be considered at the moment. It seems as though it's accepted as indisputable fact both that they are a cause, and that the effects of not doing something about them will be catastrophic.

"This is data that has been collected since Galileo’s first records and drawings of sun spot activity.  Most scientists agree with the findings that the mini medieval ice age was caused by solar activity.  But the manmade climate change activist continue to ignore the model and data from the Astronomy Community which shows higher activity in warming periods and lower activity in the present cooling period.  "

Lee, don't you know that Galileo was backed by big oil!

Leauki, here are some articles that talk about how its most likely our solar system (the sun) causing the increase.:

http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf

"“According to the findings reviewed in this paper, the variable output of the sun, the sun’s gravitational relationship between the earth (and the moon) and earth’s variable orbital relationship with the sun, regulate the earth’s climate. The processes by which the sun affects the earth show periodicities on many time scales; each process is stochastic and immensely complex." One can be lead to postulate that the same thing is happening on mars.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL030207.shtml

The study found that times of high solar activity are on average 0.2 degrees C warmer than times of low solar activity, and that there is a polar amplification of the warming. This result is the first to document a statistically significant globally coherent temperature response to the solar cycle"

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=4048902

"Recent results have indicated strong correlations between climate parameters and solar activity. Upper troposphere and stratosphere temperatures have been found to vary in phase with the 10- to 12-year solar activity cycle. On a longer time scale, the global temperature, particularly the Northern Hemisphere land air temperature, has been found to be nearly perfectly correlated with the long-term variation of solar activity."

Here's an article about neptune for you (we are not causing the situation on Neptune.  shows that its has to do with the sun/solar system) http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028764.shtml

"If changing brightnesses and temperatures of two different planets are correlated, then some planetary climate changes may be due to variations in the solar system environment."  The fact with mars (that same thing that is happening to Neptune is happening to Mars) leads me to believe that it has something to do with the solar system.

As we speak, where I live we got 4-5 inches of snow in like 3 hrs! We are to get a total of 8 to 16 inches. 

Penn State's most definitely got a dog in this hunt, so it is in its interest to try to tamp down the fires, but even so it's not done investigating Mann, Leauki.  Did you just not see the 'virtually' & 'all-but' parts?  Your (and the article's) claim that he's been 'exonerated' is perhaps premature.  From the same article you cite:

That's very convoluted double-negative-academic-speak for 'He may be guilty as hell'.  They 'let him off' on the other 'charges' on the technicality that there's 'no proof he acted on' any of the sentiments he clearly expressed in those email exchanges.  Sort of like the Brits letting Phil Jones off the hook on the grounds that the SOL had run out.  We'll just have to wait & see whatever it is they mean by 'accepted practices within the academic community' - that is, if we ever hear anything from them again.

They also did nothing to look at his methods in producing the 'hockey stick', since that was before he moved to PSU.

Embrace Global warming now!!! Or what will be next ? Slow the rotation of the earth to make the day longer? Who cares if rich liberals lose their precious beach front property, nature will make new beaches, just as it has for millions of years. Maybe we can blame global warming on the hundreds of millions of farting heard animals, like bison, that roamed the plains tens of thousands of years ago. Pick your favorite cause of the effect, but accept whatever will occur, no need to throw money at it, but if you do, how about throwing it my way? I'll promise to take gas-x and stop farting out greenhouse emissions, if you'll kindly send me those dollars you are so quick to spend on a fantasy.

So, this woman called a talk radio show I was listening too. Her liberal daughter is accusing her of causing global warming... how? well, said woman has flatulence problem, she tried holding it but that doesn't work; her daughter says she isn't doing enough to hold it back, and that farts contain methane which contributes to global warming, and thus her mother is at fault for destroying the earth.

See, it's all very plain and simple. And what a great argument for massive wars as a means to reduce the population...and future greenhouse gas emitters. It just goes to show that if you fool with one concept it effects another. That's why I say just let it happen...and pass the bean dip.

Rush Limbaugh.  I did not hear the call, but it is on his web site (I read about it - something you will never find a liberal doing because it would make it harder for them to slander him).

All I can say for that women is she better make sure her daughter gives her father an extra big father's day gift.  It (flatulence) does not seem to bother him all that much.

WOW!!!

Now this is breaking news.

It looks like Dr. Jones of CRU fame has announced that there has not been any big warming trends since 1995, that he admits man-made warming may not be happening and that his poor record keeping skills maybe to blame for not producing the Raw Data when asked.

I think all the allegations of scientific fraud finally got to him.  In the end I think this will help the scientific community realize the importance of good record keeping.

Daily Mail ,  I'm wondering where the US press is on this story.  Will they start truely digging into the links of Dr. Mann, Gore and NASA with the green industies?  Lets see if this story has legs or will it only be the UK press that is doing all the hard lifting here.

The scientific community KNOWS the value of record keeping. Those frauds are not scientists, they are communists wearing lab coats.

Interesting read given the subject. LINK