GREEN SCIENTISTS CAUGHT TAMPERING WITH THE HISTORICAL RECORD. AGAIN
UEA
by JAMES DELINGPOLE12 Feb 20151007
video ----> http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...t-tampering-with-the-historical-record-again/
Ever since Climategate, the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia has enjoyed just international renown as a world centre of data-fudgin’, scientific-method-abusin’, FOI-dodgin’, decline-hidin’, grant-troughin’, junk-science-endorsin’ global warming propaganda.
But did you know that the chap who founded the institution, Hubert Lamb, was a committed sceptic who would without a shadow of doubt have been perfectly appalled by the way the CRU has since prostituted itself in the bankrupt cause of climate change alarmism?
No, of course you didn’t – and with very good reason
Here, for example, is what one of the CRU’s subsequent directors, Trevor Davies, had to say when he wrote Lamb’s obituary in 1997:
But it would, I think we can agree, be very easy to read both those obituaries and come away with the impression that Hubert Lamb was, to all intents and purposes, one of the founding fathers of “climate change” theory and that he would largely have been on the side of the current scientific “consensus” on the global warming.
However, as a fascinating new paper produced by Bernie Lewin for the Global Warming Policy Foundation reveals, nothing could have been further from the truth.
Lamb’s big thing during his period as a climate scientist was “natural variation.” It’s thanks largely to Lamb’s seminal work Climate: Present, Past & Future that we know about the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age. These eras are key to the climate change debate because what they demonstrate is that our planet has shown itself perfectly capable of dramatically warming and cooling without any anthropogenic input. And if it was true in Medieval (and Roman, and Minoan times), then how can we sure it isn’t also the case with Twentieth Century warming? This is why – as we saw in the Climategate emails – the alarmists are so desperate to erase the Medieval Warming Period (“MWP”) from history. It is, as they might say the most inconvenient of truths)
If you want to read more about what Lamb thought and believed read the GWPF report or this piece by Paul Homewood.
As you do, you will surely relish the bitter irony that the climatologist who did more than anything to put “climate change” studies on the map was about as sceptical and sceptical as can be. During his lifetime, he saw the way the wind was blowing and loathed it: his field, he realised, was being hijacked by computer modelers with pre-determined views on the causes of climate change. These models were anathema to Lamb, who maintained that there could be no real understanding of what climate might do in the future until we could first find an explanation for the natural variations in the past.
The chutzpah with which the alarmists have claimed Lamb as one of their own is breathtaking – if not altogether surprising given their known fondness for tampering with the historical record.
Exactly the same thing happened with Roger Revelle, the lecturer cited by Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth as the expert who first alerted him to the problem of man-made global warming.
But as I report in my book Watermelons, Revelle was a sceptic, not an alarmist.
by JAMES DELINGPOLE12 Feb 20151007
video ----> http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...t-tampering-with-the-historical-record-again/
Ever since Climategate, the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia has enjoyed just international renown as a world centre of data-fudgin’, scientific-method-abusin’, FOI-dodgin’, decline-hidin’, grant-troughin’, junk-science-endorsin’ global warming propaganda.
But did you know that the chap who founded the institution, Hubert Lamb, was a committed sceptic who would without a shadow of doubt have been perfectly appalled by the way the CRU has since prostituted itself in the bankrupt cause of climate change alarmism?
No, of course you didn’t – and with very good reason
Here, for example, is what one of the CRU’s subsequent directors, Trevor Davies, had to say when he wrote Lamb’s obituary in 1997:
“[Lamb experienced] the satisfaction of convincing the remaining doubters of the reality of climate variation on time-scales of decades and centuries.”
Here is what the Climatic Research Unit’s website says in its biography of its founder:
He did more than any other scientist of his generation to make the academic community aware of climate change. However, in the years after his retirement the emphasis of research shifted towards evaluating the role played by human activities. He was well acquainted with the pioneering works of Svante Arrhenius in Sweden, and G.S. Callendar in England, and wrote in 1997 that, ‘it is now widely thought that the undoubted warming of the world climate in the twentieth century is attributable to the increased concentration in the atmosphere of so-called greenhouse gases’
Yes, it’s true that the obituary goes on to mention that: “However, he always referred back to the instrumental record, and his attitude to greenhouse warming remained guarded.”
But it would, I think we can agree, be very easy to read both those obituaries and come away with the impression that Hubert Lamb was, to all intents and purposes, one of the founding fathers of “climate change” theory and that he would largely have been on the side of the current scientific “consensus” on the global warming.
However, as a fascinating new paper produced by Bernie Lewin for the Global Warming Policy Foundation reveals, nothing could have been further from the truth.
Lamb’s big thing during his period as a climate scientist was “natural variation.” It’s thanks largely to Lamb’s seminal work Climate: Present, Past & Future that we know about the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age. These eras are key to the climate change debate because what they demonstrate is that our planet has shown itself perfectly capable of dramatically warming and cooling without any anthropogenic input. And if it was true in Medieval (and Roman, and Minoan times), then how can we sure it isn’t also the case with Twentieth Century warming? This is why – as we saw in the Climategate emails – the alarmists are so desperate to erase the Medieval Warming Period (“MWP”) from history. It is, as they might say the most inconvenient of truths)
If you want to read more about what Lamb thought and believed read the GWPF report or this piece by Paul Homewood.
As you do, you will surely relish the bitter irony that the climatologist who did more than anything to put “climate change” studies on the map was about as sceptical and sceptical as can be. During his lifetime, he saw the way the wind was blowing and loathed it: his field, he realised, was being hijacked by computer modelers with pre-determined views on the causes of climate change. These models were anathema to Lamb, who maintained that there could be no real understanding of what climate might do in the future until we could first find an explanation for the natural variations in the past.
The chutzpah with which the alarmists have claimed Lamb as one of their own is breathtaking – if not altogether surprising given their known fondness for tampering with the historical record.
Exactly the same thing happened with Roger Revelle, the lecturer cited by Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth as the expert who first alerted him to the problem of man-made global warming.
But as I report in my book Watermelons, Revelle was a sceptic, not an alarmist.
In July 1988, he had written to Senator Tim Wirth of Colorado, chairman of a Senate committee investigation into the greenhouse effect and climate change, urging caution. “We should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer,” he said.
Later, Revelle made his scepticism even more explicit in a paper written in collaboration with his old friend Dr. Fred Singer, professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia, and with an energy expert, Dr. Chauncey Starr. Published in the small-circulation journal Cosmos, the authors stated: “Drastic, precipitous and especially unilateral steps to delay the putative greenhouse impacts can cost jobs and prosperity and increase the human costs of global poverty without being effective.” It concluded: “The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time.”
Al Gore’s response? To mount a campaign of disinformation and character assassination. He persuaded a friend to circulate the story that the elderly Revelle (who died shortly after the Cosmos article appeared) was coerced into putting his name to the article while sick and not in his right mind. (Singer later successfully sued his accuser for libel.) Gore also rang the ABC news presenter Ted Koppel, urging him to expose the alleged fact that Singer and his fellow sceptics were being funded by the fossil fuel industry.
Koppel’s principled on-air response could scarcely have summed up the truth of the matter more perfectly. Koppel noted that there was:
…some irony in the fact that Vice-President Gore—one of the most scientifically literate men to sit in the White House in this century—(is) resorting to political means to achieve what should ultimately be resolved on a purely scientific basis. The measure of good science is neither the politics of the scientists nor the people with whom the scientist associates. It is the immersion of the hypothesis into the acid of truth. That’s the hard way to do it, but it’s the only way that works.
Where Stalin used to airbrush his enemies out of history, the alarmists have gone one better by greenbrushing their opponents in such a way as to make it look as if they were allies all along.Later, Revelle made his scepticism even more explicit in a paper written in collaboration with his old friend Dr. Fred Singer, professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia, and with an energy expert, Dr. Chauncey Starr. Published in the small-circulation journal Cosmos, the authors stated: “Drastic, precipitous and especially unilateral steps to delay the putative greenhouse impacts can cost jobs and prosperity and increase the human costs of global poverty without being effective.” It concluded: “The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time.”
Al Gore’s response? To mount a campaign of disinformation and character assassination. He persuaded a friend to circulate the story that the elderly Revelle (who died shortly after the Cosmos article appeared) was coerced into putting his name to the article while sick and not in his right mind. (Singer later successfully sued his accuser for libel.) Gore also rang the ABC news presenter Ted Koppel, urging him to expose the alleged fact that Singer and his fellow sceptics were being funded by the fossil fuel industry.
Koppel’s principled on-air response could scarcely have summed up the truth of the matter more perfectly. Koppel noted that there was:
…some irony in the fact that Vice-President Gore—one of the most scientifically literate men to sit in the White House in this century—(is) resorting to political means to achieve what should ultimately be resolved on a purely scientific basis. The measure of good science is neither the politics of the scientists nor the people with whom the scientist associates. It is the immersion of the hypothesis into the acid of truth. That’s the hard way to do it, but it’s the only way that works.
They're all scientific illiterates.
You don't hear any scientists argue that the sun doesn't heat the Earth, or that the law of gravity doesn't exist, or that water freezes at 100 degrees F instead of 32.
That's settled science. It can't be disputed because it's been proven to be true over and over and over again.
Anyone who has an IQ bigger than the length of alkiefagdelt's mother's penis can see how global warming is anything but settled. It creates many more questions than it answers. If the oceans are supposedly heating up and consuming all the CO2, how can we explain the polar ice caps expanding at the same time? Last time I checked, dropping an ice cube into warming water will melt it, not cause it to expand in size.
I'm also still just dying to see the data on these allegedly catastrophic side effects of that enormous 0.07-degree increase from a year ago...and how humans are directly responsible for causing it.
It's amazing how dumb these people are. The 21st century flat earthers, lol. We wouldn't have computers, light bulbs, the internet, phones, etc if it were up to conservatives. Imagine Canadian Joe knowing the govt was spending millions/billions of dollars on a large box that did simple calculations! Dude would shit his pants, lol.
Lmao. So true. If conservatives always were in power.....still horse and buggy. History always proves them wrong about everything but the next generation of idiots step to carry the torch for their dumb hillbilly dads. Just bad parenting....that's what leads to conservatives. Lots of these old dudes dying off......society trying to progress thru...as they die off it becomes easier.
It's hilarious and scary at the same time. Because there are actually southern conservatives in elected positions that actually think like these idiots. Some of them actually believe that because the Earth is old and climate has changed in the past that man can't have an effect on it. How can any grown adult in the 21st century believe that? Lol. It's so strange. I just can't comprehend being that dumb. Makes no sense to me.
Global Warming Hysteria Has Problem: It Doesn't Fit With Facts
1848 CommentsBY THOMAS SOWELL
02/02/2015 06:46 PM ET
Thomas Sowell
It was refreshing to see meteorologists apologize for their dire — and wrong — predictions of an unprecedented snowstorm that they had said would devastate the northeast.
It was a big storm, but the Northeast has seen lots of big snowstorms before and will probably see lots of big snowstorms again. That's called winter.
Unfortunately, we're not likely to hear similar apologies from those who've promoted "global warming" hysteria for years, in defiance of data that fail to fit their climate models.
What is at issue is not whether there is "climate change" — which nobody has ever denied — but whether the specific predictions of the "global warming" crowd as to the direction and magnitude of worldwide temperature changes are holding up over the years.
The ultimate test of any theoretical model is not how loudly it is proclaimed but how well it fits the facts. Climate models that have an unimpressive record of fitting the facts of the past or the present are hardly a reason for us to rely on them for the future.
Putting together a successful model — of anything — is a lot more complicated than identifying which factors affect which outcomes. When many factors are involved, which is common, the challenge is to determine precisely how those factors interact with each other. That is a lot easier said than done when it comes to climate.
Everyone can agree, for example, that the heat of the sunlight is greater in the tropics than in the temperate zones or near the poles. But, the highest temperatures ever recorded in Asia, Africa, North America or South America were all recorded outside — repeat, OUTSIDE — the tropics.
No part of Europe is in the tropics, but record temperatures in European cities like Athens and Seville have been higher than the highest temperatures ever recorded in cities virtually right on the equator, such as Singapore in Asia or Nairobi in Africa.
None of this disproves the scientific fact that sunlight is hotter in the tropics. But it does indicate that there are other factors which go into temperatures on Earth.
It is not only the heat of the sunlight but its duration that determines how much heat builds up. The sun shines on the equator about 12 hours a day all year long. But in the temperate zones, the sun shines more hours during the summer — almost 15 hours a day at the latitude of Seville or Athens.
It is also not just a question of how much sunlight there is falling on the planet but also a question of how much of that sunlight is blocked by clouds and reflected back out into space. At any given time, about half the Earth is shielded by clouds, but cloudiness varies greatly from place to place and from time to time.
The Mediterranean region is famous for its cloudless summer days. The annual hours of sunlight in Athens are nearly double those in London — and in Alexandria, Egypt, there are more than twice as many annual hours of sunlight as in London.
How surprised should we be that cities around the Mediterranean — Alexandria, Seville and Tripoli — have had temperatures of 110 or more, while many tropical cities have not? Clouds and rain are common in the tropics.
American cities like Phoenix and Las Vegas often hit 110 degrees, because they are located where there are not nearly as many clouds during the summer as are common in most other places, including most places in the tropics. The highest temperatures on earth have been reached in Death Valley, Calif., for the same reason, even though it is not in the tropics.
Putting clouds into climate models is not simple, because the more the temperature rises, the more water evaporates, creating more clouds that reflect more sunlight back out into space. Such facts are well known, but reducing them to a specific and reliable formula that will predict global temperatures is something else.
Meteorology has many facts and many scientific principles but, at this stage of its development, weather forecasts just a week ahead are still iffy. Why, then, should we let ourselves be stampeded into crippling the American economy with unending restrictions created by bureaucrats who pay no price for being wrong?
Certainly neither China nor India will do that, and the amount of greenhouse gases they put into the air will overwhelm any reductions we might achieve, even with draconian restrictions at astronomical costs.
Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...nge-models-dont-fit-reality.htm#ixzz3RfDG4xpT
1848 CommentsBY THOMAS SOWELL
02/02/2015 06:46 PM ET
It was refreshing to see meteorologists apologize for their dire — and wrong — predictions of an unprecedented snowstorm that they had said would devastate the northeast.
It was a big storm, but the Northeast has seen lots of big snowstorms before and will probably see lots of big snowstorms again. That's called winter.
Unfortunately, we're not likely to hear similar apologies from those who've promoted "global warming" hysteria for years, in defiance of data that fail to fit their climate models.
What is at issue is not whether there is "climate change" — which nobody has ever denied — but whether the specific predictions of the "global warming" crowd as to the direction and magnitude of worldwide temperature changes are holding up over the years.
The ultimate test of any theoretical model is not how loudly it is proclaimed but how well it fits the facts. Climate models that have an unimpressive record of fitting the facts of the past or the present are hardly a reason for us to rely on them for the future.
Putting together a successful model — of anything — is a lot more complicated than identifying which factors affect which outcomes. When many factors are involved, which is common, the challenge is to determine precisely how those factors interact with each other. That is a lot easier said than done when it comes to climate.
Everyone can agree, for example, that the heat of the sunlight is greater in the tropics than in the temperate zones or near the poles. But, the highest temperatures ever recorded in Asia, Africa, North America or South America were all recorded outside — repeat, OUTSIDE — the tropics.
No part of Europe is in the tropics, but record temperatures in European cities like Athens and Seville have been higher than the highest temperatures ever recorded in cities virtually right on the equator, such as Singapore in Asia or Nairobi in Africa.
None of this disproves the scientific fact that sunlight is hotter in the tropics. But it does indicate that there are other factors which go into temperatures on Earth.
It is not only the heat of the sunlight but its duration that determines how much heat builds up. The sun shines on the equator about 12 hours a day all year long. But in the temperate zones, the sun shines more hours during the summer — almost 15 hours a day at the latitude of Seville or Athens.
It is also not just a question of how much sunlight there is falling on the planet but also a question of how much of that sunlight is blocked by clouds and reflected back out into space. At any given time, about half the Earth is shielded by clouds, but cloudiness varies greatly from place to place and from time to time.
The Mediterranean region is famous for its cloudless summer days. The annual hours of sunlight in Athens are nearly double those in London — and in Alexandria, Egypt, there are more than twice as many annual hours of sunlight as in London.
How surprised should we be that cities around the Mediterranean — Alexandria, Seville and Tripoli — have had temperatures of 110 or more, while many tropical cities have not? Clouds and rain are common in the tropics.
American cities like Phoenix and Las Vegas often hit 110 degrees, because they are located where there are not nearly as many clouds during the summer as are common in most other places, including most places in the tropics. The highest temperatures on earth have been reached in Death Valley, Calif., for the same reason, even though it is not in the tropics.
Putting clouds into climate models is not simple, because the more the temperature rises, the more water evaporates, creating more clouds that reflect more sunlight back out into space. Such facts are well known, but reducing them to a specific and reliable formula that will predict global temperatures is something else.
Meteorology has many facts and many scientific principles but, at this stage of its development, weather forecasts just a week ahead are still iffy. Why, then, should we let ourselves be stampeded into crippling the American economy with unending restrictions created by bureaucrats who pay no price for being wrong?
Certainly neither China nor India will do that, and the amount of greenhouse gases they put into the air will overwhelm any reductions we might achieve, even with draconian restrictions at astronomical costs.
Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...nge-models-dont-fit-reality.htm#ixzz3RfDG4xpT
Let's be real here, you and Joe are clearly psychotic anti-government loons. There is no questioning that. So are you really a person that is credible enough to talk about others literacy level? I'm going to go with no here. But, that's the power of the Internet, it gives a place where retards can meet and talk about their retarded beliefs.
Oh really Paul?
Post #602
^ Blog
Post #608
^ Even has blogs in the URL
Post 578
^ From the Guardian, not authored by a scientist
Post #581
^ Blog not authored by scientist, quoted Media Matters
Post #584
^ Pasted from a blog.
Post #587
^ Video copied from the Guardian
Don't worry Paul, your other lies were already pointed out to you. All you do is lie on this Web site all day. Every day.
Oh the irony!
http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/13/its-too-cold-to-protest-global-warming-at-yale/
Yale anti-fossil fuel campaigners have indefinitely postponed a protest that was set for this weekend due to “unfavorable weather conditions and other logistical issues.”
Fossil Free Yale, a group pushing the university to divest itself from fossil fuels, told the Yale Daily News that frigid, snowy weather set for this weekend will mean their global warming protest will have to be postponed.
:Carcajada:
http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/13/its-too-cold-to-protest-global-warming-at-yale/
Yale anti-fossil fuel campaigners have indefinitely postponed a protest that was set for this weekend due to “unfavorable weather conditions and other logistical issues.”
Fossil Free Yale, a group pushing the university to divest itself from fossil fuels, told the Yale Daily News that frigid, snowy weather set for this weekend will mean their global warming protest will have to be postponed.
:Carcajada:
What that map is not showing you is the 90" of snow we got in the last three weeks. Yes 90" in three weeks. For the math challenged, a 6' man is 72". And they are not telling you that the temperature has not reached 32 degrees any day of those three weeks.
This stuff is unprecedented around here.
Anybody ever look into Global Cooling?
This stuff is unprecedented around here.
Anybody ever look into Global Cooling?
haha
Have all the equipment. Still can't keep up. The roof has to be constantly shoveled or raked too. Have ice damns on roof's edge of a foot square. The heat from the house melts the snow. As the melt runs down the roof under the snow it hits the thick ice dams. Some of the water adds to the bulk and impenetrability of the ice dam by forming more ice. Some of it backs up 'till it finds it's way into the house. This is very bad for a lot of reasons. And it's happening to me (my house).
Global warming sucks!
Have all the equipment. Still can't keep up. The roof has to be constantly shoveled or raked too. Have ice damns on roof's edge of a foot square. The heat from the house melts the snow. As the melt runs down the roof under the snow it hits the thick ice dams. Some of the water adds to the bulk and impenetrability of the ice dam by forming more ice. Some of it backs up 'till it finds it's way into the house. This is very bad for a lot of reasons. And it's happening to me (my house).
Global warming sucks!
Just another Pav failure thread:
Scientists warn the sun will 'go to sleep' in 2030 and could cause temperatures to plummet
Scientists warn the sun will 'go to sleep' in 2030 and could cause temperatures to plummet
