0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
From: Phil Jones To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000 Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx 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 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. Thanks for the comments, Ray. Cheers Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx NR4 7TJ UK
The largest scientific scandal in decades is quickly unfolding in the U.S. and the U.K. Investigations have already begun at two universities, one in England, the other in Pennsylvania. A long series of leaked or hacked e-mails strongly indicate that several prominent climate scientists have hidden data from Freedom of Information requests, conspired to hide unfavorable findings and doctored scientific evidence. Those at the heart of the scandal are the leading supporters of the human-induced global warming hypothesis. Since those involved are all either government employees or beneficiaries of large grants, criminal probes will follow. Even Britain's leading environmentalist is calling on those involved to resign.Like most non-climate scientists I am an agnostic on global warming and its causes. I understand very well the type of mathematical models used by climatologists -- they are remarkably like those employed by economists. That alone should generate healthy skepticism. But, like most other folks I simply cannot judge the science (but at least admit it). It literally takes a doctoral degree and a significant number of years of research to appreciate the quality of the data and analysis. That is exactly why high levels of integrity are needed by those conducting research. Being often wrong (or not quite right) is the price of conducting serious research. Lying about research, especially when it is linked to funding, is another matter. It is worth restating that the scientific method is all about attempting to disprove a hypothesis.These scientists were caught trying to prove something. The e-mails could hardly be more damning, and there are soon to be millions more who are agnostic toward global warming.Let me be clear though, that agnosticism on global warming is not a policy-neutral position. Simple aversion to risk would argue for significant research into the effects of global warming (whether it was human caused or not). When someone tells you the sky is falling, it is prudent to at least look up. That means, in this case, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars for research. Therein lay the temptation.The problem with global warming as a hypothesis though, isn't that it is wrong or right (time will tell for certain). The problem is that it has taken so much of the air out of other more laudable environmental goals.For example, there's no disagreement that emissions from coal-fired power plants cause huge scale human mortality and morbidity. Particulate matter and mercury kill perhaps hundreds of thousands of people each year. Likewise agricultural emissions endanger waterways and aquifers or that the transportation of petroleum products is environmentally risky. Efforts in many of these areas have been slowed or stopped in order to pursue a cure for global warming. For example, U.S. coal-fired power plants have stopped installing emissions reduction technology due to uncertainty over cap and trade.This scandal unfolds even as world leaders meet in Copenhagen to craft an as yet elusive remedy to climate change. Let us hope they pay attention to more than these scientists.Michael Hicks is director of the Center for Business and Economic Research and an associate professor of economics at Ball State University
I've always said global warming was a bunch of bs, thank god that before we went and did something stupid that it may have been rooted out as a hoax. Most scientists and science itself is an opinion and not a proven fact, if it were then they could say I told you so. So maybe now they've been found out and the sky is not falling.
Hey I can fantasize can't I?
sure you can, let me help ya
I don't know of too many politicians that could resist the temptation to tax/regulate the very breath we exhale!
Did anyone notice how the EPA just declared CO2 a "dangerous substance"?
They just did it. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1946095,00.htmlThe EPA just announced that the agency had finalized its finding that greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, pose a threat to human health and welfare. Who knows what will ultimately come of this, but I'm thinking more jobs will go overseas, and many things will become much more expensive. Enjoy your steak while you can... cows not only exhale carbon dioxide, they fart methane -- and have been targeted before as a significant source of greenhouse gases.
Started by CTENG in KS « 1 2 3 4 » Chit Chat Camp
Started by CruzrDave New Announcements and Info
Started by BigMike Club Sign-Ups, Listing, Info, and Contacts
Started by emsvitil Chit Chat Camp
Started by BigMike New Announcements and Info
Author
Topic: Hadley Climatic Research Center hacked, emails prove conspiracy!!! (Read 3408 times)
