Search
Close this search box.
Facebook Twitter Youtube

Search Results for: climategate

Shock Retraction of Climate Science Paper Showing No Climate Emergency Draws Comparisons with Climategate Scandal

August 26, 2023

https://dailysceptic.org/2023/08/26/shock-retraction-of-climate-science-paper-showing-no-climate-emergency-draws-comparisons-with-climategate-scandal/ BY CHRIS MORRISON Shocking details of corruption and suppression in the world of peer-reviewed climate science have come to light with a recent leak of emails. They show how a determined group of activist scientists and journalists combined to secure the retraction of a paper that said a climate emergency was not supported by the available data. Science writer and economist Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. has published the startling emails and concludes: “Shenanigans continue in climate science, with influential scientists teaming up with journalists to corrupt peer review.” The offending paper was published in January 2022 in a Springer Nature journal and at first attracted little attention. But on September 14th the Daily Sceptic covered its main conclusions and as a result it went viral on social media with around 9,000 Twitter retweets. The story was then covered by both the Australian and Sky News Australia. The Guardian activist Graham Readfearn, along with state-owned Agence France-Presse (AFP), then launched counterattacks. AFP ‘Herald of the Anthropocene’ Marlowe Hood said the data were “grossly manipulated” and “fundamentally flawed”. After nearly a year of lobbying, Springer Nature has retracted the popular article. In the light of concerns, the Editor-in-Chief is said to no longer have confidence in the results and conclusion reported in the paper. The authors were invited to submit an addendum but this was “not considered suitable for publication”. The leaked emails show that the addendum was sent for review to four people, and only one objected to publication. What is shocking about this censorship is that the paper was produced by four distinguished scientists, including three professors of physics, and was heavily based on data used by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The lead author was Professor Gianluca Alimonti of Milan University and senior researcher of Italy’s National Institute of Nuclear Physics. Their paper reviewed the available data, but refused to be drawn into the usual mainstream narrative that catastrophises cherry-picked weather trends. During the course of their work, the scientists found that rainfall intensity and frequency was stationary in many parts of the world, and the same was true of U.S. tornadoes. Other meteorological categories including natural disasters, floods, droughts and ecosystem productivity showed no “clear positive trend of extreme events”. In addition, the scientists noted considerable growth of global plant biomass in recent decades caused by higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In fact this scandal has started to attract comparison with the Climategate leaks of 2009 that also displayed considerable contempt for the peer-review process. One of the co-compilers of the Met Office’s HadCRUT global temperature database Dr. Phil Jones emailed Michael Mann, author of the infamous temperature ‘hockey stick’, stating: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-reviewed literature is!” Interestingly, Professor Michael Mann of the University of Pennsylvania, has a part to play in this latest de-platforming exercise. In the Guardian attack article he said it was another example of scientists from “totally unrelated fields” coming in and naïvely applying inappropriate methods to data they don’t understand. “Either the consensus of the world’s climate experts that climate change is causing a very clear increase in many types of weather extremes is wrong, or a couple of nuclear physics dudes in Italy are wrong,” he said. It was an AFP ‘fact-check’ attack, published soon after the Daily Sceptic article, that brought other activist scientists into the campaign to retract the offending science paper. It was part-written by Marlowe Hood, whom regular readers will recall was recently given about £88,000 by the Foundation arm of a large Spanish bank heavily involved in financing green technologies. One of the experts quoted by AFP was Dr. Freiderike Otto, who works in the pseudoscience field trying to ‘attribute’ single weather events to long-term changes in the climate using computer models. She is helped in this work by funding from the green billionaire investor Jeremy Grantham. Otto said the authors of the report were “of course” not writing their paper in good faith. “If the journal cares about science they should withdraw it loudly and publicly, saying that it should never have been published.” Another scientist calling for the work to be cancelled was Stefan Rahmstorf, head of Earth Systems at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. He told AFP that he did not know of the Springer journal, “but if it is a self-respecting one it should withdraw the article”. The leaked Pielke emails provide a fascinating insight into the way Springer Nature dealt with the issue over the last year. At first there was concern that Alimonti et al. only referenced the work of the IPCC’s fifth assessment report, although it was pointed out that when the paper was originally submitted the IPCC sixth assessment had not been published. It was suggested an ‘erratum’ should be compiled. Professor Alimonti took the understandable view that an ‘addendum’ was more appropriate. The addenda were prepared and then sent out for review to four people and an adjudicator. Three reviewers recommended publication and one was against. The adjudicator was then reported to have sided with the minority view. One of the reviewers recommended acceptance by noting: “The statements made by the authors are generally in agreement with the assessment produced by the working group 1 of the IPCC on their Sixth Assessment Report.” Another reviewer wrote: “The original article is a straightforward recitation of credible, key data about several types of extreme weather events. I find nothing selective, biased or misleading in what they present. While there’s hardly anything written that isn’t well known to experts, it’s useful for non-experts to see the underlying data, which are most often obscure in the IPCC reports.” But all to no avail. The adjudicator agreed with the one dissenting voice that the addendum did not meet the “scientific standards” that would allow for publication. “Furthermore, I recommend retraction of the original manuscript.” The article was subsequently retracted, although a new version has been republished here. Dr. Pielke’s conclusions are damning. “The abuse of the peer-reviewed process documented here is remarkable, and stands as a warning that climate science is as deeply politicised as ever with scientists willing to exert influence on the publication process both out in the open, and behind the scenes.” Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic‘s Environment Editor.

Climategate professor Michael Mann: ‘The GOP is the single greatest enemy of the planet’

April 25, 2023

Michael Mann science. https://t.co/EXTCcNvOEW — Marc Morano (@ClimateDepot) April 25, 2023 # Related:  Trump is a ‘threat to the planet’, claims Michael Mann – ‘The future of this planet could quite literally lie in the balance’   Climate activist Michael Mann’s solution to deadly tornadoes: ‘We need to pass Build Back Better…to address this problem at its core’ – ‘Preventing it most importantly, from getting worse by acting on climate’ Michael Mann on MSNBC: “Well, you know, we need to pass Build Back Better, because that –that bill has climate provisions that will address this problem at its, you know, at its core, which is the warming of the planet due to carbon pollution, fossil fuel burning, so that’s most important. We can prevent this from getting worse if we act on climate.” …  Mann: “It’s really both. It’s adapting to the changes that we are already forced to deal with and preventing it most importantly, from getting worse by acting on climate.”  # Marc Morano comment: “Pass a pork-barrel spending bill to improve the weather!? Mann must be utilizing every ounce of his Ph.D. to have come up with climate ‘solution.’”  See:‘BONKERS!’ Watch Morano Minute: ‘The Jurassic, Holocene, and now….Manchin-cene??!’ Climate activists say Sen. Manchin’s opposition to Biden’s pork-barrel spending will alter Earth’s geologic record! # Warmist Michael Mann warns of ‘madhouse effect’: Declares Trump could destroy the world! Prof. Michael Mann to President Trump: Withdrawing from UN Paris climate pact is ‘a crime against the planet’ – Warns Trump’s ‘legacy’ will be ‘a charred planet’ Climategate professor Michael Mann spews some of his claimed scientific consensus views. @MichaelEMann Mann: “The GOP is the single greatest enemy of the planet.” Michael Mann: ‘A second Trump term is game over for the climate – really!’ Mann: “A second Trump term is game over for the climate – really!” – “If we are going to avert ever more catastrophic climate change impacts, we need to limit warming below a degree and a half Celsius, a little less than three degrees Fahrenheit,” Mann said. “Another four years of what we’ve seen under Trump, which is to outsource environmental and energy policy to the polluters and dismantle protections put in place by the previous administration … would make that essentially impossible.” “The future of this planet is now in the hands of American citizens,” he says. “It’s up to us. The way we end this national and global nightmare is by coming out and voting for optimism over pessimism, for hope and justice and progress over fear and malice and superstition. This is a Tolkienesque battle between good and evil, and Sauron needs to be defeated on election day here in the United States.” Michael Mann on COVID: ‘I see a perfect storm of climate opportunity’ – Also exposed ‘deadliness of anti-science’ views Michael Mann on COVID: “I see a perfect storm of climate opportunity. Terrible as the pandemic has been, this tragedy can also provide lessons, particularly on the importance of listening to the word of science when facing risks. That could be from medical scientists advising us on the need for social distancing to reduce the chances of contagion, or it could be from climate scientists recommending we cut carbon emissions to reduce the risk of climate catastrophe. There is also awareness of the deadliness of anti-science, which can be measured in hundreds of thousands of lives in the US that were unnecessarily lost because a president refused to implement policies based on what health scientists were saying. Out of this crisis can come a collective reconsideration of our priorities. How to live sustainably on a finite planet with finite space, food and water. A year from now, memories and impacts of coronavirus will still feel painful, but the crisis itself will be in the rear-view mirror thanks to vaccines. What will loom larger will be the greater crisis we face – the climate crisis.? Mann on Gates: “I disagree with him quite sharply on the prescription. His view is overly technocratic and premised on an underestimate of the role that renewable energy can play in decarbonising our civilisation…Gates writes that he doesn’t know the political solution to climate change. But the politics are the problem buddy. If you don’t have a prescription of how to solve that, then you don’t have a solution and perhaps your solution might be taking us down the wrong path.” Mann on Greta: “I am very supportive of Greta. At one point in the book, I point out that even she has at times been a victim of some of this bad framing.

Flashback 2010: Reuters reports on Climategate & UN scandals

November 25, 2022

https://jp.reuters.com/article/idUSSGE63B06R Excerpt: One high-profile site is climatedepot.com, run by Marc Morano, a former aide to U.S. Republican Senator James Inhofe, who is an outspoken critic of climate change policies. Morano, who told Reuters he had also been the target of abusive emails, has been quoted as saying that climate scientists should be publicly flogged. “The global warming scientists need to feel and hear the public’s outrage at their shenanigans like “climategate” … There is no advocacy of violence or hint that people should threaten them,” Morano said, adding: “Public outrage is healthy.” # Flashback: Don’t Let Media Whitewash Climategate! Read Chapter excerpt revealing the truth behind scandal The Anniversary of Climategate scandal Read Chapter excerpt from The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change by Marc Morano:  UN IPCC exposed as “the best science that politics and activism could manufacture.” Morano: “The Climategate scandal revealed that the UN IPCC was simply a lobbying organization portraying itself as a science panel. If the UN failed to find carbon dioxide was a problem, it would no longer have a reason to continue studying it—or to be in charge of offering ‘solutions’…The leading UN IPCC scientists were caught red-handed artificially manufacturing the “scientific consensus” for the global warming narrative. Their own words betrayed that they were acting like political partisans, not scientists—crafting a predetermined message rather than following the evidence. Climategate exposed the work product of the IPCC as the best science that politics and activism could manufacture.” Morano: “When the scandal broke, the global warming establishment—led by the UN, academia, and the media—immediately went into move-along-nothing-to see-here mode. There were several high-profile “investigations” of Climategate that were obviously designed simply to restore credibility to the UN and climate scientists The global warming industry investigated itself and exonerated itself.” # Rex Murphy of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation summed it up: Climategate “pulls back the curtain on a scene of pettiness, turf protection, manipulation, defiance of freedom of information, lost or destroyed data and attempts to blacklist critics or skeptics of the global warming cause.” Murphy added, “Science has gone to bed with advocacy and both have had a very good time.” Clive Crook, writing for the Atlantic: “The Penn State inquiry exonerating Michael Mann—the paleoclimatologist who came up with ‘the hockey stick’—would be difficult to parody. Three of four allegations are dismissed out of hand at the outset: the inquiry announces that, for ‘lack of credible evidence’, it will not even investigate them…. You think I exaggerate?…In short, the case for the prosecution is never heard. Mann is asked if the allegations (well, one of them) are true, and says no.”  

Climate activist who set himself on fire at Supreme Court ‘edited a link to an online course’ taught by Climategate prof. Michael Mann

April 25, 2022

NY Post: Wynn Bruce dies after lighting himself on fire outside Supreme Court A climate activist who lit himself on fire on Earth Day outside the United States Supreme Court Building has died, according to reports. Wynn Bruce, 50, of Boulder, Colorado, died Saturday, a day after he set himself ablaze in Washington, D.C., the Metropolitan Police Department told Fox News. The incident happened around 6:30 p.m. on the plaza in front of the court building. He was airlifted to a local hospital, where he died. A Facebook page belonging to a person named Wynn Bruce said he was a Buddhist and a climate activist. In 2020, Bruce left a cryptic Facebook comment that included a fire emoji and the date of his death, 4/22/2022. A Buddhist priest from Boulder said she knew Bruce and called his death “an act of compassion.” “This guy was my friend. He meditated with our sangha [Buddhist community],” Dr. K. Kritee wrote. “This act is not suicide. This is a deeply fearless act of compassion to bring attention to climate crisis. We are piecing together info but he had been planning it for at least one year.”  

Climategate 2 10th Anniversary – Over 5000 emails posted

November 22, 2021

https://cliscep.com/2021/11/22/climategate-2-anniversary/ “I think, that “our” reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann’s work were not especially honest.” – Douglas Maraun, UEA. Today is the tenth anniversary of “Climategate 2”. On 22 November 2011, about two years after the first Climategate event, a link was placed by FOIA on six climate sceptic blogs. One of the blog owners, Verity Jones, wrote a blog post The Chosen Few with all the links and timings. As mentioned in my previous post, one of those bloggers, Roger Tattersall, subsequently had his computers confiscated by the Police. You can hear his full interview with Gordon Corera here (only a short excerpt made it into the Radio 4 programme). The zip file at the link contained over 5000 emails, many more than the first tranche, but they were all from the same original batch downloaded in 2009. As well as the emails, there was a README.txt file in which Mr FOIA sets out his motivation (“FOIA 2011 — Background and Context”) and then summarises some of the issues raised by the content of the emails. It’s given in full here. FOIA expresses concern over poverty and the amount of money being wasted on climate action, that could be better spent. He clearly has left-wing views. As I discussed in the post about the BBC’s “Hack That Changed The World”, this ought to dispose of the delusion that Climategate was organised by a free market lobby group or “Big oil”. Presumably those in the echo chamber who still believe this myth haven’t bothered to read it. “Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day.” “Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.” Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on hiding the decline. The text file then highlights certain issues, with some quotes from relevant emails. One issue is how the IPCC AR4 is being written in a misleading way by Phil Jones and others. For example, in email 1939, Peter Thorne criticises Jones for not accurately representing uncertainties, and in email 3066 he says that “I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.” In email 2884, Tom Wigley tells Michael Mann that a figure he sent is “very deceptive” and that in his opinion “there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC.“ FOIA gives numerous example of politicisation and spin and “The Cause”, a phrase used by Mann in email 3115 and email 3940. On the technical side, FOIA highlights the temperature reconstructions, the medieval warm period, and private admissions of the poor quality of climate models. The first issue is particularly devastating. It’s clear from the emails that most of the climate scientists in the emails regard Michael Mann’s notorious hockey stick as, to use their technical term, “crap”, and some of them acknowledge that Steve McIntyre’s criticism of Mann’s work is valid. I don’t think we can say we didn’t do Mann et al because we think it is crap! Is the PCA approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It seems to me that in the case of MBH the answer in each is no. I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures… The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about. There has been criticism by Macintyre of Mann’s sole reliance on RE, and I am now starting to believe the accusations. the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. How should we deal with flaws inside the climate community? I think, that “our” reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann’s work were not especially honest. In the MBH instance virtually all the simple internal consistency checks one should expect to find, are missing. I have just read the M&M stuff critcizing MBH. A lot of it seems valid to me. At the very least MBH is a very sloppy piece of work — an opinion I have held for some time. That’s just the tip of the Climategate 2 iceberg. There are more links and summaries here, here and here.

HOW DID THE GLOBAL WARMING SCAM SURVIVE ‘CLIMATEGATE’?

June 21, 2021

    https://electroverse.net/how-did-the-global-warming-scam-survive-climategate/ By CAP ALLON In 2009, a whistleblower released emails showing how climate academia was manipulating/destroying data, and blocking publication of articles which didn’t support their anthropogenic global warming agenda. “Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash,” wrote reporter Christopher Booker for the Telegraph.co.uk back in November 2009. Even The Guardian’s George Monbiot expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the hacked emails, as their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. “Their importance cannot be overestimated,” continued Brooker. “What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).” Professor Philip Jones was the director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) from 1998 to 2016 — during this time, Jones was in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC’s key scientific contributors, Jones’ global temperature record was, and remains, the most important on which the IPCC and governments rely when making policy decisions — not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it. Jones is also a key part of the closely-knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph, which turned climate history on its head by claiming that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history: Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick graph. Mann’s “hockey stick” was the basis for the IPCC’s conclusion that “there is discernible human impact on climate.” However, and in a first step toward restoring the rigor of science in the global climate debate, a committee of the National Academy of Sciences back in 2006 presented the results of its directed study of the science behind the infamous graph. The Academy’s report identified the failure of the hockey stick to model climate beyond the past 400 years, as evidenced by its inability to reflect the medieval climate optimum (MCO). The optimum has been extensively documented by recorded human history and proxies, but cannot be explained by computer models based on equations that assume that greenhouse gases dominate climate change. These same models predict massive increases in Earth’s atmospheric temperature because of the additions of a small percentage of human-derived carbon dioxide. The IPCC needed to remove the MCO from the historical record books because the period blew apart their global warming theory: any forcing other than CO2 able to cause terrestrial warming is an inconvenient spanner in the works, and so, with the help of Mann, the panel completely erased every one of them from history in one clean swipe. This was a brazen plan, particularly given the extensive data, records and proxies out there demonstrating that the MCO did indeed occur. These same natural records also prove the existence of the cyclic and preceding Roman-era warm event, and the very same data, records and proxies are on show again today during our modern warming event. Climate, it turns out, is driven mainly by the Sun and the impact solar activity has on the oceans: ironically, it is the IPCC that are the true climate deniers. Dr. Tim Ball’s temperature graph for the past 1,000 years is generally considered much closer to the actual reality. Below are a few of the ‘hacked’ exchanges between Philip Jones and Michael Mann between 1999 and 2008 (courtesy of The Guardian): 1) CONFLICT OF INTEREST From: Phil Jones <[email protected]> To: “Michael E. Mann” <[email protected]> Date: Wed Mar 31 09:09:04 2004 Mike, … Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL. Cheers Phil Jones did not specify which papers he had rejected. But one appears to have been by Lars Kamel, which claimed to have found much less warming in Siberia than Jones. It was a rare example of someone trying to replicate Jones’ analysis — one of the key ways in which science validates itself. So on the face of it, there was good reason to publish, even if flaws needed correcting. But the paper was rejected by Geophysical Research Letters, partly it seems because Jones “went to town”. This raises important questions about conflict of interest in scientific peer review, and how Jones wielded his power as a reviewer. 2) BIASING THE IPCC ASSESSMENT From: Phil Jones <[email protected]> To: “Michael E. Mann” <[email protected]> Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004 Mike, … I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is ! Cheers Phil Jones is writing about two new papers. One, from two known skeptics Ross McKitrick and Pat Michaels, claimed to show a correlation between the geographical patterns of warming and of industrialization, suggesting that local urbanization rather than the global influence of greenhouse gases were often key in warming on land. Jones evidently wanted to use his position as a lead author to keep the paper out of the IPCC report. In the event, the paper was not mentioned in early chapter drafts, but was added to a final version, where its findings were dismissed as “not statistically significant”. Critics say that by keeping it out of early drafts, Jones prevented reviewers scrutinizing his conclusion. 3) REWRITING THE RULES OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION From: Phil Jones <[email protected]> To: [email protected], Tom Wigley <[email protected]> Date: Wed Dec 3 13:57:09 2008 Ben, When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA [ClimateAudit] was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school – the head of school and a few others) became very supportive. I’ve got to know the FOI person quite well and the Chief Librarian – who deals with appeals… Cheers Phil Climate Audit is the web site run by Steve McIntyre, a Canadian mathematician peppering Jones with requests for his data. There is no legal basis for rejecting FOI requests on the basis of the “types of people” they are. The records show that the university turned down most FOI requests, from McIntyre and others, for CRU data. Of 105 requests concerning CRU submitted up to December 2009, the university had by late January 2010, acceded in full to only 10. 4) DELETING THE EVIDENCE Phil Jones wrote to Mike Mann in 2008: Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise… Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise… Cheers Phil British skeptic David Holland had recently asked CRU for all emails sent and received by its tree-ring specialist Keith Briffa about the recently published IPCC report, of which Briffa was a lead author. Briffa had been in correspondence with Mann and two American researchers, Gene Wahl and Caspar Ammann, who had a forthcoming paper defending Mann’s controversial “hockey stick” graph. This secret correspondence was outside the IPCC’s formal review process and seemed to break its rules. Clearly, CRU people wanted to hide this correspondence from FOI requests. This email persuaded the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office that the university was “acting so as to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requested information”, and thus requests were “not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation”. ‘Climategate’ runs a lot deeper than the four emails and two scientists shown above. The scale is actually jaw-dropping, and the email hack should have been enough to take the AGW scam down. Here are two additional emails (images & highlighting courtesy of Tony Heller over at realclimatescience.com): All this clearly reveals that fraud, lies and cover-ups are the backbone of the ‘global warming theory’. The fact that the scam is still ongoing, and has actually gained further-traction in recent years, is testament to the agendas and powerful propagandizing at play. The moronic masses have been duped into thinking the world is actually ending. Our youth have been completely corrupted, transformed into a parroting mob devoid of ANY understanding of the topic at hand. The boredom of teendom has been given a phony purpose: to fight the threat posed by rising carbon dioxide emissions, and in future years, as these noisy, entitled pricks come of age –and win elected office– I can only imagine the devastating, economy wrecking and fuel poverty-inducing policies they will keenly implement. Globalization, socialism, population control, and an overall redistribution of power appear to be the end goals here, with –as is always the case– “fear” being used as the driving force. I can’t picture a better way to thumb-down the masses than making them think world is ending, and moreover, convincing them that it is their modern, comfortable way of life that is the root cause. This is evil. This is genuis. Hats off. THE VIEWS OF DISTINGUISHED GEOLOGIST DR LEE GERHARD “I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming concept until the furor started after NASA’s James Hansen’s wild claims in the late 1980s,” says Dr Gerhard. “I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting with first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false.” Dr Gerhard is a retired geologist from the University of Kansas. He obtained a B.S. in Geology in 1958, an M.S. in Paleontology minor. in 1961, and a Ph.D. in Geology in 1964. Gerhard believes that climate change has been a natural phenomenon driven by natural processes for 4.5 billion years. But that cultural pressures now exist to identify a human cause for current trends. As Peter Flawn, President Emeritus of the University of Texas, writes, “All geologists early in their careers are introduced to solving problems through multiple working hypotheses — of deriving solutions from the data rather than, as is common among some social scientists, settling upon a solution consistent with the reigning theory and supporting it with data selectively chosen.” Gerhard adds, “that although many geologists have expressed concern about the paucity of data supporting supposed human-driven climate change, scientific tests to falsify the hypothesis have been lacking.” In 2001, Dr Gerhard was listed as an expert reviewer of the previous two IPCC reports. He considers his stance on Earth’s climate objective and based on science, aspects he feels IPCC reports routinely lack. “Some argue that the Arctic is melting, with the warmest-ever temperatures,” says Gerhard, continuing, “One should ask, ‘How long is ever?’ The answer is since 1979. And then ask, ‘Is it still warming?’ The answer is unequivocally ‘No.’ Earth temperatures are cooling.” Gerhard states that the global temperature changes naturally all of the time, in both directions and at many scales of intensity. “The warmest year in the U.S. in the last century was 1934 (with cooling observed after 1998) absolutely falsifying claims that human carbon dioxide emissions are a controlling factor in Earth temperature. “During the last 100 years, temperature has both risen and fallen, including the present cooling — and ALL the changes in temperature of the last 100 years are in normal historic ranges, both in absolute value and, most importantly, rate of change,” concludes Gerhard. I’m sick of the lies — lies made a thousands times worse by the climatic reality that is actually barreling towards us: The COLD TIMES appear to be returning, the mid-latitudes are REFREEZING, in line with the great conjunction, historically low solar activity, cloud-nucleating Cosmic Rays, and a meridional jet stream flow (among other forcings). Both NOAA and NASA appear to agree, if you read between the lines, with NOAA saying we’re entering a ‘full-blown’ Grand Solar Minimum in the late-2020s, and NASA seeing this upcoming solar cycle (25) as “the weakest of the past 200 years”, with the agency correlating previous solar shutdowns to prolonged periods of global cooling here. Furthermore, we can’t ignore the slew of new scientific papers stating the immense impact The Beaufort Gyre could have on the Gulf Stream, and therefore the climate overall. Prepare accordingly— learn the facts, relocate if need be, and grow your own.

Schooling Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann On Climategate

February 24, 2021

https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-click/4rUNGyamP_eqBa1GJWhYzshKSQ5tDswBllfRPYejqGQa531hkeL-Y75Cv2Kokyw23qcvov32X2FUJXr9DCTLdhVtvxKvmZqHjTuf5oQwLjwpf1mB-_uEKZ6vnV8KHOtyYgBMUIWgUx4PggKHg6Q_gw Schooling Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann On ClimategateClimate Change Dispatch / 4d Climategate was a conspiracy by ‘fossil-fuel-industry front groups, paid attack dogs, & conservative media outlets,’ claims Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann in his latest potboiler The New Climate War. I do hope the rest of his book isn’t as inaccurate as this ludicrous, paranoid statement. Certainly, as one who was intimately involved in the Climategate – a dump of emails which showed the climate science Establishment in a highly dubious light – I can certify that Mann is talking utter nonsense here. First,  ‘Climategate’. In his book, Mann tells us that ‘even the name’ Climategate was the product of a ‘carefully crafted narrative.’ Yeah, right. I popularised the name by writing the article that made it go viral. No craft and very little care went into choosing the name, as I wrote in my (highly prophetic) book Watermelons: How Environmentalists Are Killing the Planet, Destroying the Economy and Stealing Your Children’s Future. Though I was the first journalist to christen the story ‘Climategate’, I want to stress in all modesty that I was not the first person. That honour went to an Australian commenter on WUWT [Watts Up With That] called Bulldust, who wrote: ‘Hmm how long before this is dubbed Climategate?’ All I did was to pick up his ball and run with it. Looking back, Mark Steyn’s ‘Warmergate’ was infinitely more clever but it arrived just a little too late in the day to gain the traction it deserved. This is how we roll on the climate skeptical side of the argument. Contra Mann’s claim we are not funded by ‘fossil-fuel-industry front groups’ because, shamingly and disgustingly – as anyone familiar with the workings of companies like Shell and BP will know – they are far too busy trying to greenwash their image and to dissociate themselves from so-called ‘climate deniers.’ For a period, Shell actually sponsored the environment pages of the Guardian, while BP tried to rebrand itself ‘Beyond Petroleum’, boasting in its brochures about how much it was embracing wind energy. What Michael Mann is engaging in here is a classic projection technique used by Marxists and fascists alike: accuse your enemies of the sins of which you yourself are guilty. There is no conspiracy among climate skeptics – a ragtag bunch of ornery individuals (mainly bloggers and retired scientists) who just want to get the truth out there by whatever means they can in a world increasingly controlled by the Climate Industrial Complex. But there is most definitely what I call a ‘concatenation of mutual interests’ in the vast and well-funded climate alarmism machine, which ranges from shyster politicians eager to virtue-signal their greenery, to green/left NGOs trying to boost donations by ramping up the scare narrative, to dodgy scientists producing fashionable junk in return for grants, to crony capitalists on the renewables bandwagon. Here is Michael Mann’s paranoid vision of how climate skeptics operate. Using online bots and trolls, manipulating social media and Internet search engines, the enemy has deployed the sort of cyber-weaponry honed during the 2016 US presidential election. They are the same tactics that gave us a climate-change-denying US president in Donald Trump. Malice, hatred, jealousy, fear, rage, bigotry, all of the most base, reptilian brain impulses – corporate polluters and their allies have waged a campaign to tap into all of that seeking to sow division within the climate movement while generating fear and outrage on the part of their “base” – the disaffected right. If only we were as powerful and dangerous as Mann pretends then maybe we would have won the argument by now. Solar and bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco-crucifixes would have been abandoned; nuclear, coal, oil, and shale gas would be thriving; and millions of households in Texas and beyond would not currently be freezing their nuts off… Read more at BreitbartSHAREVISIT WEBSITE

Climategate: Another Anniversary (never forget)

November 27, 2020

https://www.masterresource.org/climategate/climategate-11-anniversary/ Climategate: Another Anniversary (never forget ….)Master Resource / by rbradley / 4h[Editor Note: It was during the Thanksgiving weekend 11 years ago that the Climategate’s unsettling oeuvre was first being disseminated and analyzed. This post summarizes some remembrances from that period.] “The conflict between the two ideas about how science should be conducted–a closed system dominated by gatekeepers, or a more chaotic but less hierarchical open system–is the dominant story of the [Climategate] emails over more than a decade.” – Fred Pierce, The Climate Files (2010), p. 13. “There is no doubt that these emails are embarrassing and a public-relations disaster for science.” – Andrew Dessler, “Climate E-Mails Cloud the Debate,” December 10, 2009. Climategate lives in infamy. Then, and now, it is a case study of agendas driving science rather than science driving agendas. Eleven years ago, climate alarmists and friends (including Dessler above) went into damage control. But with such an evidentiary record of scientific malpractice, books solidified the record such as: The Hockey Stick Illusion, by A. W. Montford (2010)Hiding the Decline: A History of the Climategate Affair, by A. W. Montford (2012)Climategate: The Crutape Letters, by Steven Mosher and Thomas Fuller (2010)Climategate, by Brian Sussmanh (2010)A Disgrace to the Profession, by Mark Steyn (2015)Perhaps the most revealing book was by a fair broker of mainstream climate science, Fred Pierce, The Climate Files (2010). Pierce fairly identified Michael Mann as the worst of the bad actors–and Steve McIntyre as the data liberator. Regarding Michael Mann (p. 90): Mann has always been a tasty target. His voluble style has made enemies and exasperated his friends. “The goddam guy is a slick talker and super-confident. He won’t listen to anyone else,” one of climate science’s most senior figures … told me. “I don’t trust people like that. A lot of data sets he uses are shitty, you know. They are just not up to what he is trying to do….” And Steve McIntyre (pp. 13–14): Climategate would not have happened without … Steve McIntyre. Whether you see him as a hero or a villain, his data wars with Mann, Jones, Briffa, and Santer helped create the siege mentality among the scientists, and set them on a path of opposition to freedom of information. By drawing in scores of data liberationists from both inside and outside the science community, he certainly inspired whoever stole the and released the emails. Here are some remembrances of the good guys and gals for the record. James Delingpole “Of course, if you believe the mainstream media, Climategate was little more than a fake news story concocted by a small cabal of wicked deniers in order to discredit the noble cause of climate science. This is a lie and a particularly dangerous lie at that.” “Climategate was the scandal that exposed this truth to the world. And that’s why the increasingly powerful alarmist Establishment has long fought so hard to play down its significance. The alarmists — helped by a lazily complicit media — are trying to do to the scandal what Harvey Keitel’s Winston ‘The Wolf’ Wolfe character did in Pulp Fiction: clean up the bodies, pretend nothing untoward ever happened.” “My own involvement in Climategate was actually quite modest. At least, the heavy lifting was done by people much more diligent and scientifically minded than me, such as Steve McIntyre, Willis Eschenbach, Joanna Nova, Anthony Watts, Lucia Liljegren, Andrew Montford, Ross McKitrick, Fred Pearce, Roger Tallbloke, Christopher Booker, David Rose, Jeff Id, Jean S, Steven Mosher, and many others.” “What Climategate revealed, however, is that the climate change ‘experts’ we’re supposed to trust just aren’t trustworthy. They lie, they cheat, they’re motivated more by grant-troughing and dodgy political activism than they are by — lol — the disinterested quest for knowledge. That was the real shocker at the time of Climategate: that the people on whose ‘expert’ wisdom trillions of dollars worth of your money and my money are being spent on sundry green boondoggles are in fact a lousy bunch of fraudulent second-raters unfit to run a cookie bake sale, let alone a scam involving upwards of one percent of the global economy.” Anthony Watts “In November 2009 I was in Brussels at a climate skeptic conference being put on by Hans Lobohm. I remember the first message I got…. “You need to look at this!“. Then reading the emails, wide-eyed, and realizing I [decided] … under no circumstances would we write anything about it or release it until I was back on U.S. soil. Then, after clearing customs at Dulles two days later, I sat down in the airport, and wrote the story, breaking the news on the 19th.” “Luckily, James Delingpole picked up the story for his column, and its entry into the British newspaper The Telegraph started the chain reaction that made the story grow, becoming the ‘worst scientific scandal of our generation‘.” “But while proponents of ‘the cause’ (most notably the execrable Michael E. Mann in a recent op-ed for Newsweek) pat themselves on the back comforting each other with ‘there’s nothing to see here’, there are reasons to rejoice about Climategate ten years later.” “Climategate brought chaos to Copenhagen aka COP15 – critically wounding the prospects of cap-and-trade legislation in the process. It helped the world dodge the climate mania bullet for 5 years, until the Paris accord in 2015.” Donald Trump became aware of the Climategate story, years before he became President, and I have to think (since he has mentioned it) that it affected his opinion…. And as we know, as President, he fulfilled his campaign promises and pulled the USA out of the Paris Climate Accord, and gutted the draconian EPA. “For [the above], I am proud to have had a part, along with the Heartland Institute, whose advice and support gave Trump even more ammunition to pull off the withdrawal from the Paris accord.” Judith Curry “There was no exoneration [of Climategate] by any objective analysis of the various inquiries. Ross McKitrick lays all this out in his article Understanding the Climategate Inquiries.” “The scientists involved in the email exchanges manipulated evidence in IPCC and WMO reports with the effect of misleading readers, including policymakers. The divergence problem was concealed by deleting data to ‘hide the decline.’ The panels that examined the issue in detail, namely Muir Russell’s panel, concurred that the graph was ‘misleading.’ The ridiculous attempt by the Penn State Inquiry to defend an instance of deleting data and splicing in other data to conceal a divergence problem only discredits their claims to have investigated the issue.” “The scientists privately expressed greater doubts or uncertainties about the science in their own professional writings and in their interactions with one another than they allowed to be stated in reports of the IPCC or WMO that were intended for policymakers. Rather than criticise the scientists for this, the inquiries (particularly the House of Commons and Oxburgh inquiries) took the astonishing view that as long as scientists expressed doubts and uncertainties in their academic papers and among themselves, it was acceptable for them to conceal those uncertainties in documents prepared for policy makers.” “… academics reading the emails could see quite clearly the tribalism at work, and in comparison to other fields, climatology comes off looking juvenile, corrupt and in the grip of a handful of self-appointed gatekeepers and bullies.” “Given the huge stakes and the serious structural issues surrounding the assessment of climate science and policy that had emerged from Climategate, these concerns of the climate scientists seem small-minded and naïve, not to mention counter-productive – ‘circling the wagons’ even tighter made the situation even worse.” “At the time of Climategate, public advocacy by climate scientists of climate policy was generally frowned upon, and only a few senior, well-established scientists dared to do this (e.g. Jim Hansen). At this point, climate scientist/activists are very large in number, and such activism seems to be a ticket to professional success.” “… Climategate lives on in numerous lawsuits that Michael Mann has filed related to criticisms of his behavior related to the hockeystick. Most of these lawsuits continue to languish since they were filed about 8 years ago (although Mann did lose his lawsuit against Tim Ball). With these lawsuits, there is no denying that the impacts of Climategate are still playing out.” Update: The New “Denialists” Some of the involved scientists, such as Michael Mann, as well as a five-part series of blogs at DESMOG have felt it necessary to relive the controversy. None dare do the most simple thing: provide the quotations. (I provided a dirty dozen here that speak for themselves.) Mann states: While the fossil fuel industry had for decades sought to forestall regulation of carbon emissions, Climategate illustrated the depths of dishonesty to which denialists were willing to sink in their efforts to sabotage action on climate. It was a tacit admission on their part that they no longer had a legitimate case to make. And so citing “Climategate” as a reason for inaction has become a simple “tell” in the climate discourse. Those who do it are acting in bad faith. They are not honest actors expressing true belief. They are dissemblers intentionally misrepresenting the science and the scientists to score political points on behalf of the fossil fuel interests whose bidding they are doing. Such an interpretation is wishful versus actual history. (It is still not known who hacked the emails; just that they were hacked.) And Michael Mann was at the center of it, inspiring one professional climatologist to humorously opine that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State.” The post Climategate: Another Anniversary (never forget ….) appeared first on Master Resource. SHAREVISIT WEBSITE

New Book: ‘Unmasking Obama’ by Jack Cashill features Climate Depot’s Climategate coverage

September 2, 2020

  https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/08/book-review-unmasking-obama-by-jack-cashill/ By Leslie Eastman    Sunday, August 30, 2020 at 6:00pm An engrossing and disturbing analysis of the Obama era, when “a ‘right wing attack’ was an unwitting code for journalism” Few books published during 2020 are as timely and desperately needed as Jack Cashill’s latest work: Unmasking Obama – The fight to tell the true story of Obama’s Presidency. Unmasking Obama is actually as much about revealing the true nature of former President Barack Obama and his administration as it is about unmasking the elite media. Chapter-after-chapter, page-after-page, Cashill reveals the choices in false information that news organizations and media analysts highlighted. The author also shares real stories that the press attempted to hide from the public. Professional reporters might have succeeded in painting a golden picture of a stellar administration and talented president if it weren’t for the conservative self-publishers (referred to as a group as “samizdat,” for the Russian term for those who created content not approved by the state). … The books is divided into chapters that reflect the special interests that Team Obama glued together to gain the White House: The Front Man, Scandal Free, The Home Front, The Red Front, The Black Front, The Rainbow Front, The Green Front, The Brown Front, The Pink Front, The Crescent Front, and The Eastern Front. Cashill combs through the media stories, exposing the narratives promoted by news organizations and pundits and comparing them to the the facts and data uncovered by the self-publishers. He also describes the punishment dished out to the “samizdat” when its information contradicted the preferred narrative. There are many great lines in “Unmasking Obama”. Perhaps the best one sums up the entire book best: “In the Obama era, a ‘right wing attack’ was an unwitting code for journalism.” I normally like to share a passage from each book I review, so readers get a feel for the author’s style. It was difficult to select one, as so many were excellent. As I wrote about this issue myself, I opted for the section covering the “Climategate” scandal (in which hacked emails showed the scientists involved massaged data to prove global warming was occurring) that was broken by Marc Morano on his ClimateDepot.com website. The Climategate story broke just before the president headed to Copenhagen, there to pledge major cuts in the U.S. carbon emissions and to persuade other nations to follow suit. Nothing the major media said could undo the reporting done by citizen journalists such as [James] Delingpole and Morano. Armed only with the truth and their frequently crashing websites, they reversed whatever climate momentum the Obama administration had seized. On December 6, 2009, more than two weeks after the story broke, the New York Times tried to cauterize the emotional wounds of the faithful. In the very first sentence of a lengthy article, reporters Andrew Revkin and John Broder reminded anxious readers of the “unequivocal evidence” for “global warming”. To further reassure them, the reporters refused to use the word “scandal” to describe the “scandal” at hand. Try as they might, though, the Times reporters could not disinfect the proceedings at Copenhagen. I strongly recommend this book, especially because the mainstream media is in full disniformation mode during the 2020 election cycle. Cashill’s work gives us a clear insight into the playbook of elite news organizations that is still in use today, including the promotion of the “Fine People Hoax” that is such a significant part of the Biden campaign. The book will also be a handy reference for recalling the true, malign nature of Obama’s presidency. It is not likely that leftist historians will delve into depth in “Fast and Furious,” “Solyndra,” or “Spygate.” Cashill is an author of 12 books on politics and current events, a producer, and a weekly contributor to WorldNetDaily and Executive Editor of Ingram’s Magazine, a business publication. He is also an executive editor with Ingram’s Magazine and has has written for Fortune, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and The Weekly Standard. I give the book 6 out of 5 stars. It’s a must-have for history buffs and political geeks, and it would be a great gift to give friends or family who have begun questioning the media’s representation of riots in our cities as “fiery but peaceful.“

Load More

For more results click below

Click here

Stay in the Know

Sign up to get updates.

Facebook-f Twitter Youtube

Copyright 2024 © All rights Reserved.