Old One: The media will not report the AGW exposure and the left will go on as if its lies have not been exposed.

Actually, Old One, I doth believe the algore-has-no-rhythm faithful are taking a playbook from the Obama/Alinsky cyber army. Why we even had a Brit (so he says) likely residing in gay Paree, inundate our 2nd post on the CRU expose’ with about every distraction from the subject at hand possible.

First he began with stating that FOIA had to be a US hacker because the UK has no “organized skeptic” groups, and that they (UK) are a dedicated Copenhagen leming, borne and bred from childhood.

While continuing to dodge the thread topic of data manipulation for political purposes, the desperate AGW cyber plant then decided that perhaps he could intimidate and distract by pulling all the catch phrases of measurements to bandy about.

Turbo landed on the wrong site, or had the bad luck of drawing the short straw…. Patvann is using him for midnight snacks while combing thru the entire database. LOL

The damage control is starting fast and furious in cyberspace, with the underground psuedo-science minions furiously typing in the blogosphere wherever this stuff is cropping up. They know they have to hide what’s been going on in the back rooms of those entrusted as the primary sources for the IPCC mandate for emissions control world wide. So it’s discredit the news, shift the focus, and attempt to intimidate with”big words”, so to speak.

This, of course, tells me that this is huge news in the “warmer” world. And they are very concerned about how this plays out in the media.

Since the blogosphere leads the MSM by about three days, and now can command they pay attention to what we are discussing, this can’t be glossed over for long. PJ media and it’s vast participation, has earned the power to create the cable talking head news segment headlines – just by a mass buzz discussion.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

The Nobel Peace Prize is issued by a nation dominated by frightened leftist idiots. 80 years of statism and welfare spending has so debauched and depraved the population of that country that they cower in their houses as they willing handing over their nation to its imported islamists and soon to be masters. My Norwegian relatives in a town of 25,000 are so scared stiff of the muslim teenage hoodlums gangsters they have invited in to be their future rulers that they will not go about the town’s center after 6 pm.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Hopenchangenhagen. If past performance is any indicator of future results, we can count on Obamao signing on to amy snake-oil the World Government is to present.The evidence sure confirms what many have thought about Al-Gore’s Inconvenient Truth. None of this evidence is making it into the lame-stream media: Al-Reuters, Al-AP, Al-ABC, Al-BBC, Al-CBS, Al-NBC. Al-Huffington Post, et al spins this as 12 year old emails. And, that criminal hackers (cabal of climate-deniers) stole them. Never mind the media revealing any of the damning content exposing the collusion, the fraud. The contents of those emails is off-limits. The hypocritical media are more interested in the lynching of the perpetrators of the downloading, rather than the contents However, had somebody successfully hacked the Booosh Administration’s White House Computers: We know that Al-CBS, etc, would have no problem publishing all content; From an undisclosed source, protected under the 1st amendment. The same treatment would never hold for the Obamaoanation, or its parent organization. Since the info is so damaging to the IPCC, and the UN cause, this information will not be revealed in main stream channels.Watts up with that reasonably rationalizes that the most probable source of the leak was internal incompetence; Plain-old UEA Info. Systems administrative clue-lessness, involving the main webserver; No hacking involved. That the UEA response to the security leak was the taking down its external web server, reasonably suggests that the public webserver was configured to permit access the internal email spools. Duh!! Government intelligence. Closing with: “There’s an old adage, never assume malice when stupidity or incompetence will explain it.”

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I wonder if the Nobel committee that awarded Al Gore his bogus prize understands the gravity of this disclosure? I’m guessing they have and will be working on an excuse to maintain face. Too late! They were already idiots for Arafat, Carter, and the final straw, Obama.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

This evenings treat of obfuscation and paranoia.

Subject: Re: Arctic2k update?
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2009 11:25:02 -0700
Cc:

D et al – Please write all emails as though they will be made public.
I would not rush and I would not respond to any of them until the best strategy is
developed – don’t want to waste anyone’s time, including yours or Mc’s. Since the recon in
Science has an error, I think you do need to publish a correction in Science. In that, you
can very briefly not it didn’t affect the calibration, nor the final result. I don’t think
you have a choice here. And I don’t think RealClimate alone is the place for this, although
RC could be good for the bigger list of issues. Don’t do it on Mc;s blog. But, it would be
good to hear from Ray and Mike, since they have the most experience in getting it right.
Here are some other QUICK thoughts – don’t count on me for the next week. Proposal hell and
traveling.
Make sure you have Keith’s feedback before saying anything about the dendro aspects.
Don’t know about Dye3 issue
Error analysis should be done and be the topic of another paper – it wasn’t included in
this paper, so it’s something that should be done outside the peer-review process. There is
lots of new research to be done, and someone should do it as time allows. Don’t get pushed
into something too rushed or preliminary, and your defense is that you wrote a paper that
reviewed well and was published. The goal wasn’t to do everything in this paper.
#4 – your are absolutely right and that could be in a blog someplace, or just let them go
ahead and do a stupid thing. If this was a climate field recon it would be different, no?
#5 is tricky. Giving him the data would be good, but only if it is yours to give. Be careful, very careful. But now you know why I advocated redoing all the analyses a few
months ago – to make sure we got it all right. We knew we’d get this scrutiny.
This paper has had great impact so far, so that’s something to remember – its good work.
Thanks, peck
On 9/5/09 8:44 AM, “Darrell Kaufman” wrote:

All:
I received my first hate mail this AM, which helped me to realize that I shouldn’t be
wasting time reading the blogs.
Regarding the “upside down man”, as Nick’s plot shows, when flipped, the Korttajarvi
series has little impact on the overall reconstructions. Also, the series was not
included in the calibration. Nonetheless, it’s unfortunate that I flipped the
Korttajarvi data. We used the density data as the temperature proxy, as recommended to
me by Antii Ojala (co-author of the original work). It’s weakly inversely related to
organic matter content. I should have used the inverse of density as the temperature
proxy. I probably got confused by the fact that the 20th century shows very high density
values and I inadvertently equated that directly with temperature.
This is new territory for me, but not acknowledging an error might come back to bite us.
I suggest that we nip it in the bud and write a brief update showing the corrected
composite (Nick’s graph) and post it to RealClimate. Do you all agree?
There’s other criticisms that have come up by McIntyre’s group:
(1) We cherry-picked the tree-ring series in Eurasia. Apparently this is old ground, but
do we need to address why we chose the Yamal record over the Polar Urals? Apparently,
there’s also a record from the Indigirka River region, which might not have been
published and doesn’t seem to be included in Keith’s recent summary. If we overlooked
any record that met our criteria, I suggest that we explain why. Keith: are you back?
Can Ray or Mike provide some advise?
(2) The correction for Dye-3 was criticized because the approach/rationale had not been
reviewed independently on its own. Bo: has this procedure now been published anywhere?
(3) We didn’t publish any error analysis (e.g., leave-one-out ), but I recall that we
did do some of that prior to publication. Would it be worthwhile including this in our
update? The threshold-exceedence difference (O&B-style) does include a boot-strapped
estimate of errors. That might suffice, but is not the record we use for the temperature
calibration.
(4) We selected records that showed 20th century warming. The only records that I know
of that go back 1000 years that we left out were from the Gulf of Alaska that are known
to be related strongly to precipitation, not temperature, and we stated this upfront. Do
we want to clarify that it would be inappropriate to use a record of precip to
reconstruct temperature? Or do we want to assume that precip should increase with
temperature and add those records in and show that the primary signals remain?
(5) McIntyre wrote to me to request the annual data series that we used to calculate the
10-year mean values (10-year means were up on the NOAA site the same AM as the paper was
published). The only “non-published” data are the annual series from the ice cores
(Agassiz, Dye-3, NGRIP, and Renland). We stated this in the footnote, but it does
stretch our assertion that all of the data are available publicly. Bo: How do you want
to proceed? Should I forward the annual data to McIntyre?
Please let me — better yet, the entire group — know whether you think we should post a
revision on RealScience, and whether we should include a reply to other criticism (1
through 5 above). I’m also thinking that I should write to Ojala and Tiljander directly
to apologize for inadvertently reversing their data.
Other thoughts or advise?
Darrell
On Sep 4, 2009, at 5:24 PM, Nick McKay wrote:

The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said.
I took a look at the original reference – the temperature proxy we looked at is x-ray
density, which the author interprets to be inversely related to temperature. We had
higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong,
unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I don’t remember. Darrell, does this
sound right to you?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

The entire lamestream media should be completely ignored. & its advertisers boycotted. By not buying its newspapers, magazines, tuning out your tv, or visitng its websites we can cut off its eyball exposure and starve to death the deranged sinister beast that is the media.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Re #7 — Old One — front page article in Seattle Times – TODAY — a golbal warming story as if it was ALL true and no questions — complete with the melting ice caps and the species extinction –

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Nothing will happen to Al Bore and his band of brigands and fraudsters. The entire left and the democrat party as well as so called moderate republicans are a fraud and will circle the wagons around him The ideolgical foundations of the libs and leftist are nothing other than fraud, lies, and deceitful & sinister actions. The media will not report the AGW exposure and the left will go on as if its lies have not been exposed.
Without exception the actions, ideas, and behavior for the left worldwide has only one goal and that is the imposition of totalitarain rule by its poseurs and present day elites aided by the the hucksters and evil charlatans who call themselves pols, academics, and the media. Unless Americans awake very soon the warning found in “The Road to Serfdom” is our future. Europeans have already doomed themselves to serfdom under socialism and Isalmism. An angry American populous are the only hope to stop an Orwellian future here and around the globe.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Sponge:

Your forgot to add: “and hopefully in jail!!!!!”

Like or Dislike: 0  0

BWWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Douchebags…….Actions have consequences. Hopefully, the consequences for al-Gore lands him in the gutter, broke and alone.

Like or Dislike: 0  0