I've had to hold my series on climate change because apparently there's no need to explain the science anymore. Emails from the climate research unit in the UK have been hacked, and it turns out the whole thing is a hoax. I'm pleased to see that Phil Jones, Director of the Climate Research Unit, has stepped down while all this is investigated. But for the McExperts, an investigation simply isn't necessary, even before any of them had a chance to read the emails, they immediately had an opinion. The hacker seems to have uncovered evidence of substantial fraud in reporting the evidence on global warming. If your gut said, wait a minute, this global warming thing, it sounds like a scam. Well, I think you're seeing it now. And the hackers got all the secret documents. How they, how the big fake environmentalists admit it's all a lie, the earth is cooling, carbon dioxide is good for you, and these people know it the whole time. Wow, all the humanity! I'm not going to have time in this video to look at the bitchiness, the derogatory remarks, and the attempts to keep what the emailers regard as bad science out of the scientific literature. If you're interested in that, I'll be happy to make another video. What I want to look at in the time I've got available of examples of fraud uncovered biometer skeptics. Examples of figures being fudged, collusion on doctoring the numbers, and admissions that data have been fabricated. Here's an example. We both know the probable flaws in Mike's reconstruction, particularly as it relates to the tropical stuff. There you go, cook and brifer as secretly admitting that they know there are flaws in the temperature reconstruction done by Mike Mann. The email goes on. The only way to deal with this whole issue is to show in a detailed study that his estimates are clearly deficient. Wait a minute, that can't be right. Okay, let's ditch that example. There are hundreds more that show a conspiracy. Look at this. I've just completed Mike's nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years, i.e. from 1981 onwards, and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Okay, that's more like it. And look at this. The fact is we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't. Pretty damning, you've got to admit. Let's have another example. I have just completed Mike's nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years to hide the decline. No, that's the same as the first one. The fact is we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it's a travesty that we can't. Hang on, that's the second one again. I've just completed Mike's nature trick of adding in the real temperatures to each series for the last... I've just completed Mike's nature trick of adding to the real temps to each series. Some of these alleged emails may actually hold the key. I think I'm seeing a pattern here. Either these are by far the most egregious examples of fraud, or they're the only examples of fraud in 13 years of emails. Well, that's hardly the hoax of the century, but let's look at these two emails anyway. Hide the decline. That seems like deliberately changing the data to suit your way. Yes, that's certainly what it looks like, doesn't it Stuart? Phil Jones' excuses that researchers use the word trick to mean a clever thing to do. But if that's how it's used, I ought to find the same usage in the scientific literature, right? So I did a word search, and guess what? The word trick is commonly used in fields as far apart as chemistry, computer science, and biology. And it seems to mean exactly what Jones says it means. If it really meant a piece of fraud, then all these scientists are admitting in their opening paragraphs that the scientific paper you're about to read is fraudulent. And that interpretation is just too stupid to be correct. But what about the term hide the decline? And from 1961, four kids to hide the decline. They're talking about the decline in the temperature, if I had little understanding of climate science and little time to do any research, that's probably what I'd think too. But in fact, Jones was talking about something completely different. The apparent decline in temperatures shown by tree ring data since the 1950s, this has nothing to do with actual temperatures. It's about the responsiveness of tree rings to changes in climate. The argument is whether tree rings should be used when reconstructing pre-industrial climates. The word I honed in on wasn't trick or decline, but the word hide. Just what Jones meant, and whether there was a deliberate fudging of data, needs to be investigated. But whatever the outcome, this has nothing to do with whether the earth has been warming since the mid 1970s or whether carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. So on to the other example of criminal fraud. We can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can. Well, that's self-explanatory. Is it? Kevin Trembeth is talking about cooling that was occurring in 2008-2009. The explanation most climatologist give is the obvious one. The earth has been cooling for the last couple of years because we've been at the nadir of the 11-year solar cycle, and last year was a particularly strong lanynea year. I'll talk about the El Nino lanynea cycle in a future video, but basically it's a cycle in which the south Pacific Ocean either absorbs or releases heat. Trembeth argues that the warming effect of carbon dioxide should be able to overcome these temporary cooling influences. If the McExperts had read the emails that preceded and followed Trembeths, they would have seen that two other climatologists disagreed with him. So the first thing to notice that Trembeth seems to be expressing his own opinion, not necessarily that of the scientific community. But even if we accept that the scientists he's in correspondence with don't agree, the quote still shows that Trembeth is confessing in private that he can't explain the lack of warming and publicly saying the complete opposite. Isn't he? I mean, isn't that what this conspiracy is all about, covering up these secret doubts? Actually, if the blabbering McExperts had bothered to read his email more carefully, they would have seen that Trembeth was referring to a paper he'd written, he even gave us the URL. And if they'd bothered to click on it, they'd have found the paper he wrote, expressing publicly the same doubts he expressed privately. So the McExperts didn't have to read hacked emails to find evidence of Trembeth supposedly secret doubts. All they had to do was read his paper, available online. If this is a conspiracy, it's a very weird one. Surely at least one email would allude to this supposed hoax. Dr. Spencer looked at this. He said this is too, too, too elaborate to be hoax. Rush Limbo isn't talking about anthropogenic climate change here. No, he's talking about whether the emails were a hoax. Faking a thousand emails? No, says Limbo, that's too elaborate to be a hoax. But faking millions of points of data in thousands of scientific papers in dozens of different scientific fields and cross-matching them so that they all tell a story that's 180 degrees opposed to reality and making sure that no one blabs about it, yep, Rush thinks that's what's happened. The hackers got all the secret documents. It's in AP. It's in Washington Post. It's all about picking up at my home. He's got everything that was in my safe. Account books, receipts, names, addresses, bank books, everything. I've instantiably known this from the get-go from 20 years ago the whole thing's made up. And the reason I know it is because liberals are behind it. I'm taking care of this job myself. Get blacky up here right away. He's talking about a trick. Knowingly perpetuating fraud. The theory of global warming is a huge conspiracy. Okay, before you all get too excited, too late, investigate what's been written and what it actually means. And hold off posting this message, where you were just putting your spin on this. If you think anything I've told you is incorrect, then check it. Check the use of the word trick in the scientific literature and whether decline is referring to global temperatures or tree ring proxies. Check Trembarth's paper and whether his views are shared by Schneider and Wiggly. And try to restrain your urge to post this message. The reason I'm talking about these two emails is that they're the ones that have been held up by every blogger and television fat mouth as the best and most obvious examples of this huge fraud. Whatever skull duggery there is will be investigated. But thankfully it won't be investigated by Fibral Nympwits who think proxy temperatures are the same as global temperatures and who aren't even aware of what's in the scientific literature. It'll be investigated by people who take the time to go over each message and who understand the science that's being discussed. And they'll come across emails most conspiracy theorists aren't even aware of, like this one from Tom Wiggly. This is a complex issue and your misrepresentation of it does you a disservice to someone like me who knows the science, it's apparent that you're presenting a personal view not an informed, balanced scientific assessment. Now you may think he's writing to a group of skeptics, but he's not. He's writing to a bunch of non-scientific academics soliciting signatures for a letter pushing for tougher controls on carbon emissions. And you won't see Glenn Beck quoting that.