30 Nov

Climategate’s “Harry Read Me” File is a Must Read!

                                       

[DELETED BY AUTHOR]

This entry was posted in ClimateGate, Global Warming, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Monday, November 30th, 2009 at 8:47 am
| 2,288 views

142 Responses to Climategate’s “Harry Read Me” File is a Must Read!

  1. Hard Right says: 101

    I think you’ve gotten under it’s skin, Mike.

    Prag, I can spell a few words that describe you quite well. Hypocrite and projection.
    As for your postings, they have been thoroughly debunked. YOU can’t handle the truth.

    ReplyReply
  2. @Pragmatic: I’m not just moderating this post, but I am also a participant in the discussion. I also have a background in the global warming issue that goes back to the 1990′s when I worked for the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington.

    So, if you ever do decide to come up with something substantive to add I’ll be all ears.

    ReplyReply
  3. Pragmatic says: 103

    Hardly Right

    Ha. I see that hardly right is only a little follower. No original thoughts there. Nope. It’s a wonder it can even start a computer let alone type! Amazing!

    Hardly, what exactly are your thoughts on the politics of the upcoming summit and treaty? Just wondering as I need a little more information before I come to any solid conclusions.

    ReplyReply
  4. @Curt: That pretty much tells you that our little Minnesota friend is NOT a serious, mature individual interested in an honest discussion of this important issue. It’s a game to him.

    What an ass!

    Are there ANY mature, serious minded liberals out there?

    ReplyReply
  5. Patvann says: 106

    Is it Prog or the kid ya just deleted a few posts back.
    (edit/added)
    Oh I’m a little slow on the uptake…Prog posted on CL, the flushd one was his respondant.

    And here I was being nice.

    *looks for ClueBat of Doom*

    ReplyReply
  6. Hard Right says: 107

    He was just a troll? There’s a shock.
    What’s funny is that he actually thought he was winning or causing trouble. Talk about denial.

    ReplyReply
  7. Maybe we need to install a gizmo that requires proof of age before commenting. We don’t get too many of these kids who are either still in college or fresh out of it and still under the spell of their professors and I’m not in the mood to educate them for free.

    ReplyReply
  8. MataHarley says: 109

    Figured Desolate – aka the vast wasteland between the ears… or perhaps considering the subject at hand might be better described as a seriously low wattage incandescent – was a product of Prag’s hinted at joke. Quick find, Curt. heh…

    But apparently there isn’t a boatload of politically minded folks hanging out on MN CL this eve. Or, much to Prag’s chagrin, he may find himself on the politically endangered species list in his state.

    ReplyReply
  9. Hard Right says: 110

    Mike, we could filter them out with an IQ test based on common sense.
    Either that or ask them questions such as:

    Che Guevara was…

    a.) A warrior for the downtrodden
    b.) A brave leader
    c.) A murderous coward
    d.) A doctor
    e.) A, B, and D

    They’ll never pick the right answer. ;)

    ReplyReply
  10. Missy says: 111

    Great-grandson was here yesterday, phew! way more active than usual! I think it was because his dad let him have pop with his happy meal. Perusing this thread makes me think someone else may have had pop with his happy meal.

    Minneapolis? hmmm, could it be….CRAP’s baby brother?

    Not to worry, found a fabulous little movie to entertain the tyke during his stay:

    http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=11976

    @Pragmatic:

    Goodness, with this little tantrum you’ve exposed another nutjob trait:

    Age without the benefit of maturity….check.

    ReplyReply
  11. Pragmatic says: 112

    bly OFF TOPIC
    Jstol OFF TOPIC
    Patvann OFF TOPIC
    Mike OFF TOPIC
    Mataharley OFF TOPIC
    Hardly Right OFF TOPIC
    Curt OFF TOPIC
    Hardly Right OFF TOPIC

    Hope you don’t mind I sent a few visitors your way to discuss Climate Change and the upcoming summit and treaty. You know, the topic we are ALL discussing. If you would please limit your discussion to the topic we may all learn from your insights!~

    Hardly Right the answer, as an American would be (d), idiot.(sarcasm in reply to you’re sarcasm, this is an edit as I’m certain you’re too thick to get it)

    Gotta get to work. Have a great day! Especially the mentally challenged Hardly Right. Hope you don’t miss the little yellow school bus!!

    “Sean stands and gives a salute to his new friends”

    C Yas this evening!

    ReplyReply
  12. @Pragmatic:

    the upcoming summit and treaty.

    Pragmatic OFF TOPIC

    If you would please limit your discussion to the topic we may all learn from your insights!~

    ReplyReply
  13. Bobby says: 114

    Mike, Mata.

    Bear with me, this is the first time that I have ever participated in an on-line
    discussion and it is fun.

    The one thing that Pragmatic did was elicit some very good information
    about so-called AGW. Patvann’s post in response to the polar ice question
    was excellent.

    I didn’t see any real discussion by Pragmatic on the topic — mostly anger.
    It seems that Pragmatic’s objective was to start a fight. Pragmatic’s first
    post started by calling everyone a “right-wing nut job”. Not a good way to
    enhance a discussion about the cooked data out of East Anglia. Perhaps
    this comes from trying to defend the indefensible — I don’t know.

    The entire set of post’s is very interesting to me because I have believed for
    years that the trends and predictions on AGW came from bad data. I could
    never confirm this because the only information to be found in newsweeklies,
    daily papers, and TV news was writeups about worse and worse doomsday
    scenarios.

    I stumbled onto this site because I was looking for more information about Climategate.
    After reading those e-mails from East Anglia, I realized why one couldn’t find contrary
    information to the so-called scientific consensus on manmade global warming.

    I believe that Robert Peterson’s post nailed a major driver of AGW — money.
    To me, another one is that the whole brouhaha is a power grab, an insatiable
    desire for control.

    As a minor sop to those trying to defend the current nonsense about projected
    man-made catastrophes, over the millenia the globe will warm. The Second Law
    of Thermodynamics demands it. By the time that happens, we will have populated
    other planets or built geodomes to live in.

    Anyway, thanks folks, I like this site.

    ReplyReply
  14. Patvann says: 115

    Welcome Bobby. May we learn from each other.

    ReplyReply
  15. @Missy: Good video find there! Here’s the embed:

    @Bobby: Thanks for dropping in. I presume you are not here due to Pragmatic’s link. I hope you’ll stick around and look at some of the other stuff we have been doing on the topic of climategate or climaquiddick. Patvann put together a compilation of our recent efforts here:

    http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/12/02/flopping-aces-own-climategate-read-me-file/

    As I mentioned above, I first became aware of this issue, and how politicized it was to become, when I worked at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the 1990′s. It was pretty clear then that the “science” was being driven by a political agenda.

    And as for your inkling that the numbers didn’t add up, that’s been a standard part of this story, though not in so dramatic a fashion as the last weeks. Remember that James Hansen who keeps the temperature record for NASA claimed that October 2008 was the hottest October on record until someone pointed out that he had used the temperature record for SEPTEMBER in making his calculations.

    I doubt most people understand that there really is no such thing as a “global” temperature. So when the scientists talk about the global temperature going up they are talking about a collection of temperatures from very different places and collected in a variety of ways not all of which are as accurate and reliable as you might expect. Then, they take all this data and run it through computer programs to try and “correct” for any errors. The entire process is fraught with untested assumptions and opportunities for more error.

    Now we learn that the original temperature records upon which the warmer’s theory rests have been destroyed and all we have left is the data that is the product of these many flawed assumptions.

    The scientific bottom line for all this is that if the temperatures were increasing as the Warmers computer models suggest we would see this reflected in actual observations. We spent a lot of money upgrading the technology to observe temperatures at the Warmers insistence and that investment has finally paid off by undermining the Warmers hypothesis.

    The Warmers did their cause, and that’s what it is, a cause and not science, by engaging in scare rhetoric about hurricanes, melting ice, sea levels, polar bears etc. Since they started doing that years ago people started paying more attention to what the Warmers insisted were signs of global warming and found instead that the opposite was actually occurring.

    I live in SC a few hundred yards from the edge of the waters of the Atlantic Ocean. I pay quite a bit of attention to hurricanes. Al Gore warned that more and bigger mega storms like Katrina were on the way and the opposite happened. NO hurricanes hit the U.S. this year and last year was nearly as quiet. 2006 wasn’t so bad either. It turns out that 2005, the year Katrina and Rita did so much damage, was the exception, not the rule.

    Anyway, sorry to ramble on here. There’s so much more I could say on this subject, like CO2 is NOT the problem, but we’ve covered that elsewhere along with so much more.

    ReplyReply
  16. Pragmatic says: 117

    I removed the link from CL. Moderator, please feel free to remove any offensive (or deemed) posts of mine.

    After some thought, I honestly believe what you’re doing here will change some minds. Although I feel the jury is still out on the overall concept of climate change, I can see you are all doing your part to ensure that a fair conclusion is demanded.

    As for my insulting remarks, I guess I’d have to say I apologize for being so obnoxious.

    Good luck to all of you.

    Sincerely, Sean

    ReplyReply
  17. @Pragmatic: It’s fine with me if you leave a link up on Craig’s List. We’re coming up on 10,000 hits on this post. The more the merrier.

    Thank you for your apology. My repeated attempts above to get you back on track were based on my belief that you did have some common sense underneath all that angry anti-right ranting.

    There’s no reason for you to go away Sean. Instead, let me invite you to peruse the many offerings we have on the climategate subject:

    http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/12/02/flopping-aces-own-climategate-read-me-file/

    We also have a wider category of global warming posts:

    http://www.floppingaces.net/category/global-warming/

    You might be interested in my discussion of the failure of the climate models to accurately predict what we now have observed is the LACK of any warming:

    http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/11/28/hacked-emails-are-the-smoking-gun-in-revealing-the-fraud-of-manmade-global-warming/

    The following chart says it all:

    Obviously, the Warmer’s computer models aren’t quite as good as the scientists who designed them said they are and provide no basis for the certainty necessary to radically alter our way of life with dramatic cuts in the energy that you and I need on a daily basis (but if anyone wants to propose massive cuts in jetsetting Hollywood celebrities and eco-warriors like Al Gore I’m all for it).

    And if you cut through all the fog you’ll find that CO2 is NOT the problem:

    There is plenty more research that needs to be done on climate change and I am all for expanding budgets to fund objective scientific study. But it’s premature and wrong to insist that we should remake our world at tremendous cost and sacrifice for a problem that might not exist when there are so many real problems like hunger, illiteracy and disease that we can do something about.

    With the limited resources we have wouldn’t it be better to get a better understanding of climate change and invest our money in addressing what really are manmade problems like hunger and illiteracy?

    Stick around. Maybe you’ll come around.

    ReplyReply
  18. Patvann says: 119

    Nice job Sean.

    ReplyReply
  19. Spiff says: 120

    Nice job, and it’s not eco-warrior, it’s ego-warrior!
    Spiff

    ReplyReply
  20. Bobby says: 121

    This is great!

    Patvann:

    Thank you for the welcome. Ramble as much as you want. It is instructive to me.
    Thanks for the link to more information — I will connect and read it.

    Mike:

    I didn’t have another link to this one, I stumbled onto the site looking for information
    on Climategate. Good information here. Gracious acceptance of Sean’s mea culpa.
    Sean (Pragmatic) really stimulated some good interaction barring the tit-for-tat,
    you-kill-my-dog-I’ll-kill-your-cat exchanges. Doesn’t matter — in my youth, my
    first reaction was to hit back until I got the crap beat out of me four or five times.
    To me, Sean does have a lot of common sense and it shows. I liked his “being in
    the DMZ analogy”. It lonely being a voice crying in the wilderness.

    Anyway, to move on, there are a number of questions that I have never seen
    addressed; CO2 seems to be the bellwether issue for AGW:

    * CO2 is heavier than the air in the troposphere. How does it get up in the
    atmosphere to become a greenhouse gas?

    * What percentage of CO2 is natural versus man-made?

    In media reports to we unwashed hicks, there are numerous references to
    the “tonnage” of CO2 that we pump into the atmosphere. The man-made CO2
    numbers are published without reference to total C02 amounts. This makes
    no sense.

    * The air that we breathe has a given level of CO2 which is very small. Has
    this level changed?

    * jstol3 pointed out that CO2 is used in photosynthesis and benefits the entire
    ecosystem. Besides standard plant and tree growth, he oceans absorb the
    majority of CO2. It seems that the planet earth takes care of itself. See
    George Carlin link below.

    To some of you folks, these will be naive questions but they puzzle me.

    Missy is intriguing and humorous! She gave a great video link. Let me try one.

    ReplyReply
  21. Patvann says: 122

    @Bobby. I’ll answer all f your questions, as soon as I come back from dropping Daughter-2 off at the school for play. 30min.

    OkeeDoke, I’m back.

    Allow me to answer your questions.

    CO2 is heavier than the air in the troposphere. How does it get up in the
    atmosphere to become a greenhouse gas?

    You’re right in that most of it stays down here. (At about 5 ft). It gains elevation by convection-currents riding the warmer air, and by winds. The “greenhouse” effect happens at all elevations. The part of it that manages to get very high up, (above where water-vapor hangs out because of the low pressure) can act like a real thin blanket, but it is almost immeasurable.

    What percentage of CO2 is natural versus man-made?

    CO2 is .038% of 5 quadrillions tons of atmosphere. (5 w/15 zeroes following). Our part is around 3% of that .038. If we added 1 billion tons of CO2 (that’s less than we do now) per year, (and the earth stopped adding it’s share) it would take us 25,000 years to get to .400%.

    In media reports to we unwashed hicks, there are numerous references to the “tonnage” of CO2 that we pump into the atmosphere. The man-made CO2 numbers are published without reference to total C02 amounts. This makes no sense.

    I could not agree more with you. You can see by the above numbers why they don’t. A gnats fart in a hurricane comes to mind…

    The air that we breathe has a given level of CO2, which is very small. Has this level changed?

    Not enough to affect non-plant life. The most we’ve seen in the pre-historic record is around 2200ppm (vs. 380ppm now.) So in percentage-speak, that’s .22%. Animal life starts being negatively affected at around 2%. Plant-life, of course loves the stuff. Air-borne fertilizer. Plant-growth records show good crop-increases since the 1900’s because of this.

    That historical record of approx. 2200ppm is based on ice-core estimations done by conjecture. Some scientists think that these samples are “polluted” because ice changes properties under the high pressure it’s at under the thousands of feet of ice. They think that CO2 never got above 1000ppm.

    We have gone from 300 to the present levels in around 100 years, and that rate-of-increase is what they use to scare us. Because we can’t show that this has never happened before, (no modern method can, even if it did happen) is another way they try to scare us.

    Rising CO2 concentration amount’s FOLLOW temperature increases by anywhere from 1100 to 500 years. The reason we see the elevated amounts now, is because of what’s termed the Medieval Warm Period that occurred around the year 1000AD, and lasted a couple of hundred years. Al Gore got busted BAD for showing the inverse of this phenomenon in his movie/presentation, and now that part of his movie has been removed.

    ReplyReply
  22. I just saw a humous comnment on a YouTube video where Al Gore couldn’t answer questions. The comment called him Al Whore.

    Ouch!

    Keeping in mind the money he stands to make promoting the global warming fraud, the moniker is a good fit many might think.

    ReplyReply
  23. Patvann says: 124

    @Glen.

    I would give my left nut to be able to debate him for 4 hours with no interruption, and on live TV.

    I’ve actually dreamed of it…

    ReplyReply
  24. Bobby says: 125

    Patvann:

    Re my queries about CO2:

    Wow! What can’t we get this sort of information published up against the
    doomsday prophets? As a matter of interest, I have sent those questions
    to several newspapers in response to some of the global warming articles.
    The questions were never published in the letters-to-the-editors nor responded
    to in my follow-up private emails to the authors.

    Folks, it seems to me that this whole AGW thing is a money-oriented and
    power-grab hoax; Al Gore’s income has gone from two million dollars to
    $200,000,000 since his very flawed “An Inconvenient Truth”. I would give
    my right one to watch your interview with Mr. Gore. (but with one caveat —
    Salma Hayak would have to do the surgery).

    There is a lot of fine information on this site. Someone, somewhere should
    be willing to put it up against the one-way presentations published frequently
    in the media. Even better, this information should be presented at the conference
    in Copenhagen. Who to do it? Perhaps, that senator from Oklahoma who, like
    Pragmatic, has been a voice crying in the willderness of congress.

    ReplyReply
  25. @Patvann: Thanks for tackling those questions. I learned something too!

    I’ve just been reading the congressional testimony of John Christy, Alabama’s State Climatologist and Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

    Christy works with Roy Spencer at U of A Hunstville. Spencer was a top dog in global temperatures at NASA:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/

    Christy’s testimony from Feb. 2009:

    http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/ctest.pdf

    Key point:

    The EPA is considering allowing California and other states to determine their own rules for CO2 emissions. I calculated, using IPCC climate models, that if the entire country adopted these rules, the impact would be a minuscule 0.01 °C by 2100. And, if the entire world did the same, the effect would be less than 0.04°C by 2100, an amount so tiny we cannot measure it with instruments, let alone notice it in anyway.

    Global Temperature Impact of 1000 Nuclear Power Plants by 2020

    The scale of CO2 emissions is simply enormous. Again using IPCC climate models, if 1000 new nuclear power plants could be operating by 2020 (about 10% of the world’s
    energy) this would affect the global temperature by only 0.07°C by 2050 and 0.15°C by 2100. We wouldn’t notice it, but this dent could just be detectable by our instruments. However, these values are very likely overstated as they are based on current models. Overstated warming in current climate models and surface data sets

    Current climate model projections assume that climate is very sensitive to CO2. We’ve
    found however, that during warming episodes, clouds step up their cooling effect. When model output is tested this way, not one model mimics this cooling effect – in fact the models’ clouds lead to further warming, not cooling as seen in nature. We hypothesize that poor cloud properties cause models to overstate warming rates. We’ve also found that current popular surface temperature datasets indicate more warming than is actually happening in the atmosphere because they are contaminated by surface development.

    And a good presentation here on the lack of any greenhouse signature which the Warmers had predicted would be the result of increasing CO2 levels:

    And of course let’s not forget the incredible body of work by Lord Monckton in the U.K:

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/

    ReplyReply
  26. Pragmatic says: 127

    Hi all,

    Thanks for the tolerance:) The following actually supports your position.

    I did a search to see if I missed Zorita being discussed. If he has already been talked about please disregard the following information.

    Otherwise my question would be, why would a co-author risk his own a$$ if he felt they thought it could be explained away?

    I have downloaded and read some of the Copenhagen IPCC’s report, and have come to no real conclusions at this point with its authenticity in question. I do however find the following very insightful, Has this been discussed?

    One of his IPCC co-authors Eduardo Zorita has demanded that Mann should be banned from contributing to future reports because his scientific assessments are “not credible any more.” Zorita also calls for the barring of CRU’s director Phil Jones and another IPCC lead author, Stefan Rahmstorf.

    Zorita, who works in the paleoclimate department of the Institute of Coastal Research, has issued a statement on his website in which he complains that the “scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas.”

    “These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. On the contrary, it is a question which we have to be very well aware of. But I am also aware that in this thick atmosphere -and I am not speaking of greenhouse gases now- editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the ‘politically correct picture’. Some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture. I had the ‘pleasure’ to experience all this in my area of research.”

    Zorita was one of the contributing authors to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. He’s unlikely to be asked to contribute to the Fifth. Indeed, as he ruefully acknowledges, this brave admission could well be the death of his career:

    Source: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018173/climategate-sack-no-longer-credible-michael-mann-from-ipcc-urges-climatologist/

    More about Zorita: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/zorita-calls-for-barring-phil-jones-michael-mann-and-stefan-rahmstorf-from-further-ipcc-participation/

    ReplyReply
  27. Patvann says: 128

    Mike

    The ONLY reason the UN’s claims the climate is so “sensitive” to CO2 is that every model used for future temp-increases, assumes that there is 2 times what there already is. That is why you will see the term “2xforcing” or something similar in all that they release about temp projections. They’ve all taken this as a “baseline” to supposedly cover the “unknown end percentage based on present rate of increases”.
    Howz THAT for a BS-line to explain an impossibility!

    But even then, CO2 temp-forcing works in a reverse-logarithmic fashion. Meaning that the FIRST 20ppm did most of what CO2 CAN do in regards to being a global-warming gas.
    The next 20ppm did half as much, the next 20 did half that, and so on. You can double it all you want, right up to the point of asphyxiation, and the planet won’t get but a couple of degrees warmer, because the planet will probably equalize using a re-balance of the amount of water vapor it keeps in the air, and heat in the oceans. (Caloric-load-balance/pressure-diffusion)

    Why is it when I put my science-hat on, I wanna punch a hippy?;-)

    *Sellllllllmaaaaaaa* *sigh*

    ReplyReply
  28. Patvann says: 129

    Actually Prag, it may be a career move for Zorita.

    In several of the e-mails, I can remember Phil being pissed off at him for “going off the ranch”. In this case, he spilled the beans about which version of programming model he used in a paper to a climate-journalist, and it was not supposed to be known that there was different versions. He did it innocently enough, and the journalist was an “insider” too, but Phil came across as one-thin-skinned dood. (In many occasions)

    I read another from Zorita turning down an offer to co-author a paper with Phil.

    They collaborated on a few papers together, and both fed papers to the UN, and to the same “approved” Journals, but I got the feeling Zorita didn’t like the level of dirty science the CRU (Phil and Mann) were doing. Not that he was above playing along for 6 years, as he could have said those same words long a go, but didn’t.

    He may be positioning himself…

    (edit/added)
    Prog, you asked:

    Otherwise my question would be, why would a co-author risk his own a$$ if he felt they thought it could be explained away?

    Could you expand on the question a bit more?

    ReplyReply
  29. Ditto says: 130

    @Pragmatic 52

    You don’t have to be a conservative or Republican to disagree with the agenda driven politicized pseudo-science of “Global Warming”/”Climate-change” fanaticism. many of us in the field recognize that it is a hoax because we also know something about how meteorology data is acquired and processed.

    I first knew such fanatics were full of it when they were projecting another Ice Age back in the seventies. Later, when all this Global Warming propaganda started being paraded out in the so called “news” I started looking into where they were supposedly getting their data. I ignored the meaningless temperature comparisons (“past” and present based on weather station’s placed in areas of urban growth, compared to supposed measurements of 100 years ago, far before the urban sprawl of today,)

    I looked more to the meteorology satellite data studies from the last 30 decades. Two “scientists” who at first denied “global warming” suddenly did a turnaround and claimed that the satellite data had errors in it and that their corrections of the errors lead them to support that global warming had taken place within the last 30 years. Intrigued, I started looking closer at their research. The “errors” these two announced, were of their “discovery” that the meteorological satellites involved were not in the orbits that they were thought to be, and that this “introduced an error in the thermal data.”

    Well, my military career just happened to be in the command/control/data retrieval systems of certain models of the particular spacecraft these two named. (DMSP AKA the Defense Meteorology Satellite Program’s “birds”). Their claim that these satellites were not where we thought they were, is both ridiculous and a baldfaced lie. First of all, to acquire communications with these sun-synchronize orbiting spacecraft, you have to know their orbital path. Only then can you make the calculations to align your antenna at the proper look angles to acquire and track each specific satellite. All perturbations, (even the most minor,) in the orbits are reported to all tracking systems as required. (There are many of these spacecraft and none are in the same orbit because you don’t want them impacting each other). Aside from the visual and thermal data, these particular spacecraft send down tertiary data, which includes their exact orbital path, altitude and point-in- time position. On top of this, the spacecraft command and control systems automatically perform error checking of each spacecraft’s reported orbital path, position and attitude a minimum of twice daily, as each satellite passes overhead.

    I’ll also make note that the majority of the meteorological satellites these two “scientists” named, have attitude and orbital correction motors installed, and their orbits can be “tweaked” by ground control operators. this most often happens with the geosynchronous orbiting birds in order to change where their sensors are aligned. At any rate, you can rest assured that those controlling these spacecraft know precisely where they are in their orbits, and where their sensors are pointed at all times.

    One last poke I will make at those two so called “scientists.” Their claim to the “orbital error” of the sun-synchronized spacecraft, (even if it were true,) can have introduced no error whatsoever in the thermal data collected, because the data is collected precisely of the portions of the Earth that the spacecraft is passing over. The only way that there could be thermal error is if the individual sensors themselves are malfunctioning, and this will easily be known and can usually be compensated for. If it’s sensor(s) fail out-right, you either switch to the back-up sensors, or failing that consider that bird’s data as unreliable, announce it as such, and you will generally stop using it.

    ReplyReply
  30. MindJedi says: 131

    By show of Digital hands, how many of you out there have read Ronald Reagans Autobiography?

    ReplyReply
  31. MindJedi says: 132

    I find it very interesting that it is almost considered criminal in today’s political dialogue on any venue, to speak plainly about anything of substantial importance. It’s as if our society has deemed any arguement or candid answer to an “ulterior motive”based questions using less than 14 complete sentances as as insufficiant. I Wonder what would become of the “democratic” party if the republican party mandated that all of it’s party officials started asking and answering questions in 25 or less words. That is something that I admire about the “old guard” They still speak in plain english, even when they say things that are not necessarily right or true. At least they speak plainly, and it is so much easier to respect them because of that single observation. Wow.

    ReplyReply
  32. MindJedi says: 133

    Wasn’t the UN origionally created to deal with WARTIME ISSUES ONLY.???

    ReplyReply
  33. Missy says: 134

    Hmmm, what have we here? People are calling on the Academy to take back Gore’s Oscar:

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/academy-%e2%80%94-take-back-gores-oscar/

    and that was because of the hacked e-mails, wait til they see this:

    Dutch: Gore Wrong on Snows of Kilimanjaro

    The Netherlands is afire today over a Dutch study concluding Mount Kilimanjaro’s snow melt — used as a symbol of AGW by Al Gore — is entirely natural.

    Newspapers and news sites in the Netherlands today extensively broke the news of the findings of a research team led by Professor Jaap Sinninghe Damste — a leading molecular paleontologist at Utrecht University and winner of the prestigious Spinoza Prize — about the melting icecap of the Kilimanjaro, the African mountain that became a symbol of anthropogenic global warming.

    Professor Sinninghe Damste’s research, as discussed on the site of the Dutch Organization of Scientific Research (DOSR) — a governmental body — shows that the icecap of Kilimanjaro was not the result of cold air but of large amounts of precipitation which fell at the beginning of the Holocene period, about 11,000 years ago.

    More:

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/dutch-gore-wrong-on-snows-of-kilimanjaro/

    And, for Patvann, the thirst for accurate knowledge about climate must be in the genes:

    Nederlander ontkracht ‘klimaatbewijs’ van Al Gore
    donderdag 3 december 2009 12:41

    De nagenoeg sneeuwloze Afrikaanse berg Kilimanjaro is ten onrechte het symbool van de ‘door de mens veroorzaakte’ klimaatverandering. Niet de mens, maar de natuur is verantwoordelijk voor de smeltende sneeuw, zo blijkt uit Nederlands onderzoek. Daar gaat een paradepaard van klimaatgoeroe Al Gore.

    Ex-vice-president van Amerika en Nobelprijs-winnaar Gore gebruikte de smeltende sneeuwmassa’s op de hoogste berg van Afrika (5.892 meter) jarenlang voor zijn klimaatpropaganda. De sneeuw verdwijnt er en dat komt door de mens en zijn uitstoot van broeikasgassen!

    More:

    http://www.elsevier.nl/web/Nieuws/Wetenschap/252385/Nederlander-ontkracht-klimaatbewijs-van-Al-Gore.htm

    ReplyReply
  34. Just for the record I thought I’d add this from Prof. Christy’s testimony before Congress:

    Photobucket

    “GISS” A, B, and C are model projections of global surface temperature from James Hansen in Senate testimony in 1988. “A” and “B” are two “business-asusual” model projections of temperature which assume emissions similar to what has happened (though in actuality these estimates were a bit less than occurred). “C” is a model projection in which drastic CO2 cuts are assumed. “UAH” and “RSS” are two independent global satellite atmospheric temperature measurements (1979-2008) from the University of Alabama in Huntsville and Remote Sensing Systems adjusted to mimic surface temperature variations for an apples to apples comparison with the model projections (factor of 1.2, CCSP SAP 1.1, note all datasets are based on the 1979-1983 reference period). All model projections show high sensitivity to CO2 while the actual atmosphere does not. It is noteworthy that the model projection for drastic CO2 cuts still overshot the observations. This would be considered a failed hypothesis test for the models from 1988.

    Now we learn that Christopher Horner may have to sue to gain access to Hansen’s data as NASA has up to now not released the information which Horner made as a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

    Is there another shoe to drop in the climategate scandal? This one closer to home?

    P.S. @MindJedi: I have read RR’s autobiography. Not one of the best autobios, even though I think he was one of our best Presidents.

    ReplyReply
  35. BENDOR says: 136

    BENDOR would bet his next paycheck that PRAGMATIC hasn’t even…

    …read the Copenhagen Treaty.

    Am I right?

    Finally, the Sun is parting the clouds on climate fraud. And not a moment too soon.

    The science fraud lunatics will slowly start to die way like this: Denial. Anger. Bargaining. Depression. and finally, Acceptance.

    I will be laughing quite joyfully the entire time.

    ReplyReply
  36. Ruth says: 137

    “Lorrie Goldstein concludes her piece by saying…”

    Lorrie is a man.

    ReplyReply
  37. MataHarley says: 138

    dang… and here I thought Lorrie was a flat bed truck….

    well, Mike. That does it. The entire post is called into question! LOL

    ReplyReply
  38. Psychosis says: 140

    i have greatly enjoyed reading the posts here and appreciate the links and very informative replies. as i am neither a scientist, or have a college degree in anything, i can not list myself as a formidable mind, but i have always felt college was unnecessary when it comes to intelligence. I have read as much as i can on the topic, from journals and submitted papers, to the insane data feeds………what a bore lol and quite lacking in any substantial effort and honesty. i came to the conclusion many moons ago that something was wrong. after many years wondering why, we now have to look at motive………..and boy is it a doosy .

    how do we get the media to report honestly on anything anymore? will this change after 2010, when they become irrelevant, and their motives and left political bent is shown? or will the U.N and Obama and the other world leaders try to continue on their goals of world domination and wealth redistribution and global governance. what is your thoughts on copenhagen, and upcoming U.N. meetings in 2010 and 2011? where can i get more information on this? and though it doesnt have to be in layman’s terms it would be easier to wade through

    ReplyReply
  39. JVerive says: 141

    @Psychosis,

    I personally believe the manstream media will never report just the facts. Sensationalism sells, and journalism is considered one of the Liberal Arts (at least in the US.) Journalism is a brutal business, with scads of unreliable sources and relentless pressure to be the first to get a story out. Mainstream media has become an outlet for eager young liberals to make a name for themselves by propagating and sensationalizing inuendo faster than the other journalists. Two or more unreliable sources are better than facts, especially when the issue elicits a visceral response. Besides, fact-checking wastes valuable time. If something feels right, who cares if facts evenfually moot a point? There’s always another sensational story that the American public simply must be told.

    I don’t believe for a moment that the media will admit to being irrelevant. It’s not part of their fabric to be self-analytical, much less self-critical and honest. If liberals lose control of Congress, I believe all we’re going to hear for the next two years is how the newly-elected members of Congress refuse Obama’s “sincere” calls for non-partisan politics. Most likely we’ll hear how the “tea-baggers” and. “neo-conservatives” conspired to block the Democratic Party’s social progress. Textbooks will blame these same groups for halting or even reversing the progress made by Obama, who will be proclaimed the best President the country could have had if only the radical right wingers hadn’t stood in his way.

    I would LOVE to be wrong about all of this!

    - sigh -

    ReplyReply
  40. JVerive says: 142

    The following is, in my opinion, a “must read” for climate change skeptics and non-skeptics alike. It is science, and is where the discussion should be focused:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/

    One can take numerous subsets of the data to predict global warming OR global cooling, so it seems reasonable to be suspicious of ANY computer model that shows only an anticipated overall rise or fall in global temperatures. Statistics gives insight into data trends, but statistics of subsets of data can be made easily to “justify” any agenda.

    This doesn’t absolve the human race of the need to be responsible with natural resources and nature in general, but it does suggest that the hype over man-made climate change has less to do with real science, and more to do with politics, corruption, willfully neglectful greed, and agenda-based propaganda.

    Jeff

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>