Michaelyya/contrarian-claims huggingface dataset:
Warmists were on a treadmill defending the hypothesis. Over 6000 leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) delineate the challenges and political rather than scientific responses. It required three major activities. A steady flow of material that appeared to provide proof; rejection of evidence that contradicted the hypothesis; and efforts to silence critics and control research and publications.
The investigation into the alleged global warming data fraud by Virginia's Attorney General may soon have a whole new angle. This comes from a previously overlooked connection between discredited tree-ring proxy researcher, Michael Mann and Yale's now deceased climate professor, Barry Saltzman.
Andrew Bolt, an inconvenient Aussie, details some of the more egregious emails and finds so-called leading scientific minds colluding to ruin the careers of those that disagree:
My view was that it was a conspiracy right from the start to bamboozle the world on the lie of anthropogenic global warming sandbagging much of the mainstream media, the markets and the educational system to not believe their own eyes and ears.
Maddow also looks at the Climategate inquiries, quoting Russell's conclusions that the CRU scientists are beyond reproach, but strangely not mentioning the fact his contradictory finding that hiding the decline was "misleading".
Im glad its getting old Gavin, very very happy in fact. Yet there is a simple truth, Gavin (who is a scientist) doesnt know which data was used anymore than we do. BECAUSE CRU WONT RELEASE IT! Why doesnt he want to know? His colleagues at CRU (Climategate central headquarters) have recently been shown hiding data from reconstructions, blocking skeptical papers which demonstrate the problems in paleo math, and removing points from temperature curves to hide downtrends. We know that only a single very high warming station is being used in GHCN for the Antarctic. We know that Switzerland and Austrailia have some very unusual warming trends. We know his colleagues blocked in two cases, papers critical of the Siberian data. Even assuming that they didnt succumb to the pressures of fraudulent selection in Russia, how is Gavin so sure his colleagues havent made an honest error.
My cue for those pieces was the evidence multiplying from across the world that something very odd has been going on with those official surface temperature records, all of which ultimately rely on data compiled by NOAAs GHCN. Careful analysts have come up with hundreds of examples of how the original data recorded by 3,000-odd weather stations has been adjusted, to exaggerate the degree to which the Earth has actually been warming. Figures from earlier decades have repeatedly been adjusted downwards and more recent data adjusted upwards, to show the Earth having warmed much more dramatically than the original data justified.
Guest essay by Professor Philip Lloyd People have the nasty habit of giving their opponents names. Those who are convinced that humans are wrecking the world by burning fossil fuels call those who dont believe them denialists. It implies that they are close to the Holocaust deniers, and so are clearly beyond the pale. I have come to the conclusion that they are wrong. The true denialists are those who believe in global warming, and who will go to any lengths to deny the evidence against that position. For instance, the final draft of the Fifth Assessment Report of IPCCs Working Group 1 concerns itself with observations of the climate and how it might change in future. Within minutes of it being released, skeptics had noted that a key figure, which compared predicted temperatures to measurements, had been drastically altered after the second draft had been approved.
Science is vitally important for the operation of highly technological society, and that science must be open, transparent, and must adhere to the scientific method. The institution of science has no place in it for hiding data, hiding data-processing, shaping data to conform to pre-existing beliefs, undermining the peer-review process, cherry-picking reports in order to slant political IPCC reports, or slandering critics by comparing them with flat-earthers, moon-landing conspiracy theorists, or holocaust deniers. Let the Climategate hearings begin.
"Many would place the beginning of the global warming hoax on the Senate testimony delivered by James Hansen of NASA during the summer of 1988. More than anything else, this exhibition of hyped alarm triggered my active skepticism about the man-made global warming scare. This skepticism was amplified when I acted as reviewer of the first three IPCC reports, in 1990, 1996, and 2001. Increasingly claims were made for which there was no evidence; in some cases the "evidence' was clearly manufactured. For example, the 1966 report used selective data and doctored graphs. It also featured changes in the text that were made after the scientists had approved it and before it was printed."
It will likely be open season on Mann. Anyone may now freely dismiss him in the harshest terms as a junk scientist who shilled for a failed global warming cabal. Without fear of his civil legal redress, we may now refer to Mann for what he is: a climate criminal, a fraudster.
Climate fraudsters now claim that there never was a Medieval Warm Period, because they are paid to lie about the climate in support of the White House politicalagenda.
Climate skeptics are having a field day, celebrating the firestorm of controversy surrounding the UK's Hadley Center Climate Research Unit (CRU), until recently, the world's leading climate research center. One skeptic, a Canadian named Steve McIntyre has particular cause for doing a happy dance over the misery of the CRU.
I predicted a few days ago that NCDC data tampering would wipe out New Yorks coldest year, and make it only second coldest. My prediction was spot on. They massively cooled the past to wreck this years record.
The climate change industry, along with people like Al Gore have slammed skeptics for not publishing in the peer reviewed literature. What the Climategate documents reveal is that this small group of scientists, who often peer-review each other's work as well as skeptical articles, have discussed ways of keeping findings they don't like out of the peer-reviewed literature as well as the IPCC reports, even if it required trying to oust editors, boycotting certain journals, or to reclassifying a prestigious journal that publishes skeptical articles as a fringe journal unworthy of consideration. They also discuss their specific intention to exclude contrary findings from the IPCC reports, even if they "have to redefine what the peer-reviewed literature is!"
Grafting instrumental data onto proxy data to produce a seemingly continuous record is trickery, because instrumental data, unlike proxy data, are massively influenced by land-use changes and site-specific quality control issues.
Bloggers and skeptics immediately tore into the package, and found evidence suggesting that CRU scientists exaggerated warming; worked furiously to hide their data from outside examination; may have conspired to actually delete information to avoid freedom of information requests, and may have conspired to keep contrary findings from being published in respected climate journals, and IPCC reports.
GISS shows 0.3C of warming in the US since 1930, which is 100% due to data tampering.
The flagrant liars at the University of Colorado and NASA claim that sea level is rising 3.3 mm/year
ost troubling, are the suggestions that a tribe of incestuous climate scientists may have actively conspired to undermine the peer-review process.
All three examinations took place within the country of physical jurisdiction, Great Britain, and none disappointed those of us anticipating whitewash. Simply stated, all parties were cleared of all wrongdoing other than perhaps sloppy journaling and sophomoric note-passing and all suspensions were lifted. As Andrew Montford summarized in his report , The Climategate Inquiries:
none of the Climategate panels mounted an inquiry that was comprehensive within their area of remit
Emails Reveal AGs Colluding with Green Groups to Investigate Climate Skeptics
Even before the Climategate Emails came to light, the problem posed by the Medieval Warm Period to this band was known. "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period" read a pre-Climategate email, circa 1995, as attested to at hearings of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works. But the Climategate transcripts were more extensive and more illuminating they provided an unvarnished look at the struggles that the climate practitioners underwent before settling on their scientific dogma.
In the interest of full disclosure, I have been an unpaid policy advisor to The Heartland Institute for many years, only once receiving a small grant many years ago to help fund research involving the global warming hoax. These days donations to my blog help sustain the effort.
As readers no doubt know, I have previously obtained a great deal of Sir John Beddington??s correspondence around the Climategate affair. As evidence of Sir John??s involvement in setting up the whitewashes grows, I started to wonder about the information that Sir John??s office had said they had withheld for one reason or another. In particular I wondered what was covered by this: