Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Well well....


Hide the decline? WHAT?

Yeah. Decline.

If you note the date of this email - 1999 - it will perhaps strike you, hard, that we've been lied to for 10 years so far.


From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,,
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.

I’ve just completed Mike’s nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.


Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email

The Death Blow to Climate Science

I am reposting this from another link - The Canada Free Press site - because it is critical information.

WE are being lied to and our Canadian PM is overseas, posed to give away critical parts of Canada's autonomy and right to governance without interference from an overseas board.

I don't know how else to say it other than please, people, stand up. "Someone else will fix this," is NOT a good plan.

Further information and extensive, supported research HERE.

Hacked files of the Climatic Research Unit, Global Warming a deliberate fraud

broken watermains
By Dr. Tim Ball Saturday, November 21, 2009

imageGlobal Warming is often called a hoax. I disagree because a hoax has a humorous intent to puncture pomposity. In science, such as with the Piltdown Man hoax, it was done to expose those with fervent but blind belief. The argument that global warming is due to humans, known as the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) is a deliberate fraud.

I can now make that statement without fear of contradiction because of a remarkable hacking of files that provided not just a smoking gun, but an entire battery of machine guns.

Someone hacked in to the files of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) based at the University of East Anglia. A very large file (61 mb) was downloaded and posted to the web. Phil Jones Director of the CRU has acknowledged the files are theirs. They contain papers, documents letters and emails. The latter are the most damaging and contain blunt information about the degree of manipulation of climate science in general and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in particular.

Climate science hijacked and corrupted by this small group of scientists

Dominant names involved are ones I have followed throughout my career including, Phil Jones, Benjamin Santer, Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, Jonathan Overpeck, Ken Briffa and Tom Wigley. I have watched climate science hijacked and corrupted by this small group of scientists. This small, elite, community was named by Professor Wegman in his report to the National Academy of Science (NAS).

I had the pleasure of meeting the founder of CRU Professor Hubert Lamb, considered the Father of Modern Climatology, on a couple of occasions. He also peer reviewed one of my early publications. I know he would be mortified with what was disclosed in the last couple of days.

Jones claims the files were obtained illegally as if that absolves the content. It doesn’t and it is enough to destroy all their careers. Jones gave a foretaste of his behavior in 2005. Warwick Hughes asked for the data and method he used for his claim of a 0.6°C temperature rise since the end of the nineteenth century. Jones responded, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” He has stonewalled ever since. The main reason was because it was used as a key argument in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports to convince the world humans caused rapid warming in the 20th century. The emails obtained are a frightening record of arrogance, and deception far beyond his 2005 effort.

Another glimpse into what the files and emails reveal was the report by Professor Deming. He wrote, “ With publication of an article in Science (in 1995) I gained sufficient credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. So one of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said. “We must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” The person in question was Jonathan Overpeck and his even more revealing emails are part of those exposed by the hacker. It is now very clear that Deming’s charge was precise. They have perverted science in the service of social and political causes.

Professor Wegman showed how this “community of scientists” published together and peer reviewed each other’s work. I was always suspicious about why peer review was such a big deal. Now all my suspicions are confirmed. The emails reveal how they controlled the process, including manipulating some of the major journals like Science and Nature. We know the editor of the Journal of Climate, Andrew Weaver, was one of the “community”. They organized lists of reviewers when required making sure they gave the editor only favorable names. They threatened to isolate and marginalize one editor who they believed was recalcitrant.

Total Control

These people controlled the global weather data used by the IPCC through the joint Hadley and CRU and produced the HadCRUT data. They controlled the IPCC, especially crucial chapters and especially preparation of the Summary for PolicyMakers (SPM). Stephen Schneider was a prime mover there from the earliest reports to the most influential in 2001. They also had a left wing conduit to the New York Times. The emails between Andy Revkin and the community are very revealing and must place his journalistic integrity in serious jeopardy. Of course the IPCC Reports and especially the SPM Reports are the basis for Kyoto and the Copenhagen Accord, but now we know they are based on completely falsified and manipulated data and science. It is no longer a suspicion. Surely this is the death knell for the CRU, the IPCC, Kyoto and Copenhagen and the Carbon Credits shell game.

CO2 never was a problem and all the machinations and deceptions exposed by these files prove that it was the greatest deception in history, but nobody is laughing. It is a very sad day for science and especially my chosen area of climate science. As I expected now it is all exposed I find there is no pleasure in “I told you so.”

You can download the climate change fraud documents from the link below: or

Monday, November 23, 2009

Today, CBC Radio Calgary ran an item from New York on the 1:00 Calgary news (radio). Colleen Underwood's newscast ran a piece wherein the speaker reported that C02 is the highest ever and rising rapidly.

This is patently false.

MANY reliable research sources show extensive information on periods in history (we're talking in the last 1000 years) when geological and ice research shows points when C02 concentrations were some 20 times the levels they are now.

Notably, the last time atmospheric C02 was at high levels corresponded with a period of sustained economic and intellectual growth - evidence of which is cathedrals (and other buildings of course) throughout Europe and the UK.

This planet is currently coming out of a short, mini-ice age, in reality.

If CBC is going to continue reporting on global 'warming' will it PLEASE insert some balance in the form of alternative but as important research.

In particular, perhaps CBC could consult with any of Christopher Moncton, who spoke at the Calgary Chamber last month and who was instrumental for four years in Margaret Thatcher's government; or CBC might consult with Dr. Ian Clark, University of Ottawa. His reply to my email question is HERE. I note that little ol' me was able to contact him, ask a question and get a coherent answer, so CBC must also be able to, armed with resources as they are.

There are many, many other resources. ALL MUST be considered if we are to have a non-corporate/politic-driven comprehension of when, why and how the planet warms and cools.

Humans are responsible for approximately POINT 61 percent of C02 in the atmosphere. Also to note, unless China and India are on board in a SIGNIFICANT way, the entire rest of the world can live naked in unheated shacks and spear their own food and it will make absolutely NO difference at all to atmospheric C02 concentrations.

Even if we in the 'first' world ceased driving all together, if we continue to eat animals at the rate we do, whatever atmospheric issues we have will not be even remotely affected - the way the 'first' world manages livestock for food is dirty, polluting, unsustainable and far worse than whatever vehicles are.

CO2 is NOT the big baddie it's been made out to be.

Water vapour is a FAR more interesting question and unless we intend to drain the oceans, which cover 80% of the earth's surface, we cannot, cannot, rhetoric and scare tactics aside, alter anything to do with planetary warming or cooling.