64 Comments

1. MARK:

AL GORE should be held for treason.

Nov 30, 2009 - 7:17 am 2. David Thomson:

“The comment section will provide a forum for readers — particularly those of scientific and technical expertise”

I lack the scientific knowledge to comment on the data per se. Still, I can point out the number one reason why this nonsense got out of control: these researchers were not compelled to provide their speculations to the general public. There simply was never any reason to justify this attitude. None of this research involved either proprietary or military defense matters. We should never allow this to occur ever again. Laws must be passed mandating all such work to be publicly accessible. This stuff should all be readily available on the Internet. Joe Blow, Frosty the Snowman, your dumb brother-in-law, the world’s greatest scientists, or whomever should be able to see the data.

Nov 30, 2009 - 7:51 am 3. liuk:

> >—–Original Message—–
> >From: Phil Jones [[6]mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
> >Sent: 05 January 2009 16:18
> >To: Johns, Tim; Folland, Chris
> >Cc: Smith, Doug; Johns, Tim
> >Subject: Re: FW: Temperatures in 2009

> > Tim, Chris,
> > I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting
> > till about 2020. I’d rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office
> > press release with Doug’s paper that said something like -
> > half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on
> > record, 1998!
> > Still a way to go before 2014.
> >
> > I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying
> > where’s the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal
> > scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.

People with such preconceptions call themselves scientists? Jesus Christ…

http://www.climate-gate.org/email.php?eid=952

Nov 30, 2009 - 8:13 am 4. misanthropicus:

… and so does go away this United Nation, Global Heating science – ooops, sorry, new religion…

… and since (fortunately) attitudes a’changin’ in a helthier direction, soon, and in the same manner will go away the “scientific” truth that has established that homosexuality is a “normal facet of the human sexuality”, fraudulent tenet so dear to liberals.

Since we are talking about “Mike’s NATURE trick” – pray, can anyone explain where is the science that allowed the removal of homosexuality in 1973 from the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association list of mental afflictions?

Doctor Hooker’s study (a piece of Michurin/ Lisenko science in itself) was the convincing science piece that was embraced by that collection of “scientists” and since 1973, the issue has became taboo, and has developed in an ample and completely fraudulent doctrine nicely rounding the warming fraud -

Sooner or later we’ll hear about this…

Nov 30, 2009 - 8:25 am 5. Anonymous:

I have a strong science background but am not interested in being baffled with b.s.. My hand calculator can not keep up with a forest of super-computers in the garbage in-garbage out motiff.

Nov 30, 2009 - 8:57 am 6. JAFerner:

All this just proves the old adage – “Everyone knows what BS is, MS is more of the same and PhD is piled higher and deeper.” As an engineer that has worked closely with physicists and engineers who want to be thought scientists for 10 years, I am not surprised. The lack of objective analysis in the peer journals and the popular science press (e.g. Scientific American) is indicative of the tendency to worship the high priests of science, the PhD’s. All the science education in the world does not guarantee common sense and ethical behavior. I remember in the 70’s when a colleague proposed nuclear power plants in the arctic to melt the ice. I suppose today we would use them to power refrigeration machines to keep the ice melting.

Nov 30, 2009 - 9:20 am 7. JED:

I have a strong science background but am not interested in being baffled with b.s.. My hand calculator can not keep up with a forest of super-computers in the garbage in-garbage out motiff. It is relativly impossible to qualify the new sciences that contribute data against the old sciences of 100 years ago, for example, that did not exist. The new data is top heavy to new technology which has been expanding expodentially every decade. The old science asked that one not change one’s instruments in the middle of an experiment.

For we simple folk to ask the number crunchers:
Assuming that the planet’s climate is moving out of the last ice age, what percent of that phemomena is due to man’s use of hydrocarbons?
Also, how is it going to significantly decrease any temperature acceleration by taxing the energy supplys?
Lastly, how would the results of this experiment be justified to us if man-made climate change would require increments of centuries to prove?

Nov 30, 2009 - 9:29 am 8. Sherab Zangpo:

This morning I have seen articles (linked on DRUDGE) that confirm what I was thinking: the UN and the internationalist subversives will not relent.
Copenhagen will open the way to the World Government pursued by the neo-communists and the economy will be put under Politburo control.

Climategate is not the battle of Gondor, it’s Helms Deep, we aren’t yet strong enough to stop the waves of orcs.

Nov 30, 2009 - 9:49 am 9. BC:

I kind of like the one that goes “The McIntyre and McKitrick paper is pure scientific fraud” and then goes into the details of why. In case you’re not up to speed on things, McIntyre and McKitrick are behind the now discredited attack on Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph.

If you are thinking that it was the hockey stick that was discredited, think again.

Nov 30, 2009 - 10:19 am 10. apb:

BC,

Gelbspan is simply an activist/AGW believer. Try this:

http://www.junkscience.com/news/gelbspan.html

Nov 30, 2009 - 10:31 am 11. EconRob:

Just postulating.

Let’s say man’s use of fossil fuels is causing a slight increase in the natural temperature. But let’s further speculate that we are no longer headed out of the last ice age but headed into a new one. In that case maybe we should really, really turn up the fossil fuel use. For sure, a few degrees warmer it a lot better than a full blown Ice Age. Right?

Nov 30, 2009 - 10:32 am 12. DavidNcl:

F–k you BC

;; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!;yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$ 2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factorif n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,’Oooops!’;

Nov 30, 2009 - 10:33 am 13. Sherab Zangpo:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

From The Sunday Times
November 29, 2009
Climate change data dumped
Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped

Nov 30, 2009 - 10:35 am 14. Ed Butt:

The irony is most of the “climate change deniers” were not denying anything. They were saying “We can see something is happening to weather petters but we are not sure what is causing it so it would be stupid spending $trillions on fixing a problem if it’s the wrong probem we are fixing.”

I began to doubt the whole climate change science thing when they started talking about “anthropogenic global warming.” It was such an obvious attempt to baffle everyone with big words. Typical of scientists when they are asked questions there are no glib answers to.

Nov 30, 2009 - 10:49 am 15. tanstaafl:

I’ve watched about half.

Would recommend as excellent Climategate video.

Climate Catastrophe Canceled

Nov 30, 2009 - 10:50 am 16. John Skookum:

How do tags get assigned? You need them for ‘Hughes’ and ‘LTRR’. Malcolm Hughes is the tree ring witch-doctor who helped Mann write the original hockey stick paper in the late 90s. Would love to see the complete raw data for his core samples and compare them to the data sets selected for dozens of other alarmist studies.

Nov 30, 2009 - 11:04 am 17. chambers:

One element that is always present, even in scientific analysis, is the human ego. Most scientists toil in anonymity trying desperately to obtain grants and funding for their projects. The “environmental movement” and “global warming” have made international scientific celebrities out of once-obscure climatologists who are now lavished with praise as the saviours of the planet. Along with this celebrity has come lavish funding and vast political clout both inside and outside the scientific community. It’s asking a lot of the human psyche, no matter what your credentials look like,to throw this away merely because the facts (rather inconveniently) won’t support the thesis on which all of this is based. The released messages show that Jones, Mann et al are not only scientifically dishonest but intellectual bullies willing to destroy the reputation of anyone who does not by into their analysis. And bullies are almost always cowards.

Nov 30, 2009 - 11:05 am 18. Dallas George:

Two Worries

I am a firm skeptic of global warming but I must admit to worrying about how long the world tried to deny or refute the fact that tobacco can cause cancer. Even aside from the efforts of the tobacco industry, many of us didn’t want to believe in the causation.

What the emails expose is an admission that tree rings are an unreliable measure of climate data. This is very significant is relation to the key question: how do we know that the rise in temperature, if any, is significant. What is a statistically significant period of time in the history of our planet? Over the planet’s history of millions of years, is a sustained rise in average temperatures of only one degree statistically significant or is it within the normal variation of the planet’s climate? If the climate database on temperatures only goes back 150 years,without tree rings, then the temperature increase over the past fifty or 100 years cannot be significant in relation to the earth’s history. Without answering that question, the causation of the temperature change, if any, is irrelevant.

Nov 30, 2009 - 11:07 am 19. BG:

“BC: I kind of like the one that goes “The McIntyre and McKitrick paper is pure scientific fraud” and then goes into the details of why. In case you’re not up to speed on things, McIntyre and McKitrick are behind the now discredited attack on Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph. ”

This is laughable, if you look at the link you will find that MM is “disproved” by referring NY times toadie (Revkin) back to the cabal that’s implicated in the fraud. Specifically Phil Jones and Mann, as well as real climate, which is a journal controlled by the AGW folks implicated, and actively silences any dissent from the AGW view. Mann’s hockey stick has been busted so many times by other then MM its not funny. If you put random noise through Mann’s algorithm, or for that matter, the CRU code, you get a hockey stick, which is what the AGW crowd wants to see. If you put flat or decreasing temperatures for the last few years, after you generate the plots, you get the hockey stick. Thats not science that’s fraud. Is BC a CRU sock pupppet?

Nov 30, 2009 - 11:34 am 20. tanstaafl:

Dallas George,

You can believe man generated emissions are not healthy for the planet and living creatures (hell, that could be confirmed at the Chinese currently trashing their environment or China’s foul emissions wafting across the Pacific ocean to the atmosphere high above southern California).

You can even believe that said emissions have an influence on weather patterns.

The travesty here, however, is different…so many individuals in the so called “scientific community” deceptively promulgating a group religion and political agenda in the name of personal profit. And worse.

It is beyond shameful and has distracted from legitimate concerns.

Nov 30, 2009 - 11:37 am 21. Dallas George:

tanstaafl

It does no good to merely impugn the motives of our opposition, especially without some strong evidence. This only plays into the hands of those who believe that climate skeptics are crazies or the dupes of the carbon energy community.

One of the global warming community’s weakest links is in relation to statistics. If they can’t address the statistical significance issue, they have no scientific basis for any climate claims.

The hockey stick theory is another example of statistical error. Even if the warming data is significant and even if there is a reliable correlation between carbon levels and warming, there is no statistical basis for extrapolating statistics beyond their known population. Regression is only reliable among the known population, not for values outside the known population. Where statistics ends is where ‘belief’ begins.

Finally, right now a scientist that could disprove global warming would make a great deal more money than one that could prove it.

Nov 30, 2009 - 12:13 pm 22. Themistocles:

9. BC said:

“If you are thinking that it was the hockey stick that was discredited, think again.”

The UN/IPCC was forced to eliminate Michael Mann’s fraudulent hokey stick from its publications, specifically because the Mann hokey stick was completely debunked.

The IPCC LOVED Mann’s hokey stick! It was visually much better than the spaghetti graphs that took its place. Now it’s gone from the IPCC, which would have loved to keep scaring school children with it.

The IPCC is thoroughly corrupt. They are no different than the fraudulent CRU tricksters. When a U.S. newspaper applied for credentials to cover the Copenhagen climate, dog and pony show, they were denied!

Freedom of the Press has no place in the UN.

Nov 30, 2009 - 12:28 pm 23. Dwight:

More comments on the emails themselves would be good here, rather than firing away. There is no question that Jones and Mann have a certain way of circling the wagons against the critics (and tat Mann is more volatile than Jones, who is more volatile than some of the others), but while we are (some of us) going over these emails, we should look for actual examples of dishonesty. I haven’t found any yet, although there are a number of embarrassing “don’t tell so and so,” as often to save hurt feelings as some deep dark secret, but they are all out in the open now.
I have gotten as far as the end of August 1994. So far I would venture to say that Jones and Mann are LOOKING FOR ways to prove AGW and that Mc Intyre is looking to disprove it. So far, it seems that Jones and Mann certainly beleeeve that they have proved x,y, and z and are more competent than those who don’t understand etc. At one point Jones or someone says getting people to change their ideas about AGY is like getting someone to change their religion. Ya think?

It is a little frustrating that one cannot copy from the database and paste messages here, or at least I haven’t figured out how to do it yet.

Nov 30, 2009 - 12:51 pm 24. MaDr:

Might I suggest that PJM start a library of anti-AGW literature/papers. The MSM has dutifully presented only one side. Some are still deluded into thinking the hockey stick wasn’t demolished – see reference/comment in link below. Note particularly the status of who “accepted” the refutation.

Here’s my first submission. A Finnish (pioneers in tree rings) video that simply discusses tree rings, inverted data, lake sediment, and yes, the infamous hocket schtick.

http://dotsub.com/view/19f9c335-b023-4a40-9453-a98477314bf2

Nov 30, 2009 - 1:04 pm 25. TMLutas:

BC – The debunking you quote rested on data that the CRU has never released and now says has been thrown away, thus making it impossible to fully replicate the analysis relied on by the NAS independently. The writer, the scientists he specifically refers to, and most of the rest of the people on the email headers are hip deep in the ClimateGate.

Objectively, after Nature grudgingly conceded that there needed to be a correction to MBH98 (though not so far a correction as they should have insisted had they followed their actual published policies) in 2005, people have quietly backed away from the hockey stick in their pronouncements to the public. You don’t see the graphic as much as you used to. So, if the MM debunking was scientific fraud, why the quiet fade away?

The reality is that everybody on the team is guarding their data unusually closely, giving it up only to friendly sources, and when some of it finally does get crowbared out into public view, like Briffa’s recent release of his Yamal chronology, it often becomes quickly evident that there are serious problems.

Briffa’s Yamal “supertree” a single tree without which his hockey stick reconstructions collapse comes out of a very thin group of 10 trees, culled from a larger group of trees that were excluded for no publicly known official reason. The interested are waiting for Briffa to give a public response. Include some other trees and the hockey stick collapses. It’s bristlecone pines all over again, just a different technique to “hide the decline”.

Nov 30, 2009 - 1:22 pm 26. Chris in Toronto:

To Dwight @ #23:

If you follow the link This database can be found at http://www.pjtv.com/climategatedb you get to the database. Click on an email. Swipe with your mouse the part you want to copy and on a Mac hit command-c or right click and select “copy” you will have copied the part of the text you want to paste into your message. I’m pretty sure that Windows works in a similar fashion.

Nov 30, 2009 - 1:38 pm 27. tanstaafl:

Finally, right now a scientist that could disprove global warming would make a great deal more money than one that could prove it.

I have my doubts. I also have doubts that any scientist anywhere could definitely prove or disprove a relationship between human activities on the earth and changing climate.

(My own theorizing postulates that destruction of natural habitat and deforestation are far greater insults to the planet. Also, that a quiescent sun (low to no sunspots)is a factor in that there has been no observable warming in 10 years, the fact that so upset the CRU crowd they were beside themselves.)

About 5 years ago, I went deeply into the subject of AGW, decided it had way too many un-scientific, money driven & politicized overtones, and became a cynic.

There has been a great deal of money and agendizing around the theme of so called anthropogenic global warming. Some scientists (in my opinion, those with integrity) refused to append their signatures to those infamous IPCC reports on which Copenhagen is based.

The whole point of Copenhagen in about a week is to bring industrialized countries with the greatest CO2 emissions to heel, to bend them (specifically, the United States, China and India will get a pass) to “the world’s” knee.

Anybody who doesn’t see the real agenda there as political is living in the Twilight Zone, in my humble opinion.

The revelations of the past 10 days or so only confirm that.

Here is a “scientific” guy with whom my views are in accord.

Dr. Madhav Khandekar, Retired Environment Canada Scientist

Nov 30, 2009 - 2:17 pm 28. BC:

Sorry dudes and/or dudettes, a hockey stick by any other name….

Nov 30, 2009 - 2:19 pm 29. dvan:

I have a question – in the original “hacked” file, were all the email addresses obscured with xxxxxxxxxx’s?

If so, this is a gigantic pointer to an inside whistleblower posting a file prepared for FOIA purposes rather than a hacker. A hacker wouldn’t bother obscuring the email addresses. Indeed, publicizing the email addresses would cause the hacker’s target even more hassles.

The xxxxx indication of an inside job is in addition to the fact that I haven’t seen a lot of “I need to change this afternoon’s HR meeting to 3:00 instead of 4:00″ type of routine organizational emails.

Nov 30, 2009 - 2:41 pm 30. Robert Burns:

I followed your link and and goes to a search engine for the e-mails. Where are the computer files and the data files that where released?

Nov 30, 2009 - 3:52 pm 31. Dwight:

#26 Chris, For whatever reason, when I highlight the desired text, none of my copy, cut etc options are highlighted. ave you actually copied and pasted from it?
I should have said that I had read through August (now October) of 2004, NOT 1994!
It is often fascinating, but alas, often turgid stuff when they start spinning out all the different codes and modes for so many different pieces of data. I wonder how many of these codes and modes they have addressed in their articles.
Dwight

Nov 30, 2009 - 4:45 pm 32. Chris in Toronto:

To Dwight #31:

Yes. I tried it before I spoke… I even pasted what I’d copied into this particular comment form (but I didn’t post it because it was just a random sample). I’m on a mac so that could be the cause of the discrepancy. You might try using the keyboard shortcut (on a PC that’d be ctrl-c, I believe).

Nov 30, 2009 - 5:24 pm 33. mrsizer:

BC, are you totally not paying attention to yourself?

The link you post has PROJECTIONS beyond 2000. Since it is now 2009, one would think something that compared the projections against actual would be easy enough.

Send me the data and I’ll whip it up. Oh wait, the data has been deleted. Nothing to see, here.

Nov 30, 2009 - 5:34 pm 34. Jack in Silver Spring:

BC @ #9: This was a review done in 2006. Left unanswered was whether the committee reviewing the paper had access to his raw data and to his computer programs. We now know how badly the computer programs were programmed, and we have an inkling that the data may have been massaged to hide the decline. Also, recall that McIntyre found an error in another data set (I think by NOAA) that originally had 1998 as the warmest year on record (or at least very recent records). Once he corrected the error, a year in the 1930 was found to be warmer. If that is correct, you are faced with a conundrum: How is it that despite the increase in CO2 since the 1930s, it was warmer then than now? Also, unanswered, whether CO2 is really leading to warmer weather, whether humankind’s contribution to the increase in CO2 is substantive or marginal, and if substantive, whether the benefits of reducing CO2 are more or less than the costs of doing so.

Nov 30, 2009 - 5:54 pm 35. Samizdat:

I note that the “Hockey Stick” graph has “data” by Mann and Jones. These “scientists” are heavily mixed up in the compilation of suspect data and I have no faith in anything they say unless it is coroborated by independent peer review.

Here’s a point to consider. There seems to be wide agreement between scientists that ambient air temperature and sea level are directly corelated. Verified measurments show that 15,000 years ago sea level was 120 meters lower than it is today. Scientists widely agree that this phenomenon is directly the result of a cooler climate which resulted in stored water in the form of glacial ice. Since the last ice age ended, for about the last 6000 years, sea level has hardly changed at all. This includes the industrial age and the last 100 years of explosive human population and industrial growth.

Unlike the hockey stick figures, sea level can be verified with certainty and has been widely studied by a variety of scientists from different disciplines. The direct corelation between sea level and ambient air temperature, and the lack of substantial change over the last several thousand years renders suspicious the hockey sticks and other suspect studies that are troted out to scare us all into throwing our economy and lifestyle away.

It seems far more likely to me that science shows that solar activity, variation in the earth’s orbit and distance from the sun have far more to do with global temperature fluctuation than the unprooven theories associated with the AGW alarmists. I can’t see why, on that basis, we should mangle the worlds economy. My suspicions are only strengthened by the disclosures of last week.

Nov 30, 2009 - 5:56 pm 36. BC:

To mesizer: is it really *that hard* for you guys to find stuff like this or this? Or are you guys just too durn busy with other things?

Nov 30, 2009 - 6:24 pm 37. valerie:

Jed,

Before you get to any of those questions, first ask, “How the hell do you attach significance to differences in temperature that are less than the margin of error of the individual measurements?

The opposition to AGW hysteria has come from scientists.

Nov 30, 2009 - 7:13 pm 38. Samizdat:

Valerie at 37,

Bingo, and they are scientists who are not compromsing data and fudging numbers.

All I say is AGW advocates, prove it.

Nov 30, 2009 - 8:08 pm 39. Dwight:

Now if someone can sort out what is going on here and whether Jones sounds responsible or irresponsible here, I’ll have a better handle on this whole thing. The first email is at the bottom and the responses follow up to the top, in order. Jones writes the final one.

Who can understand half this stuff…but Jones sounds as if he is trying to do the right thing. What am I missing?

The 1981 to 2010 data that Jones says that he is waiting for and will be relieved to get done, because he will be approaching retirement, should clear up everything, right?

From: Phil Jones
To: Kevin Trenberth , Kevin Trenberth , Peter Ambenje , Roxana Bojariu , David Easterling , David Parker , Fatemeh Rahimzadeh , Jim Renwick , Matilde Rusticucci , Brian Soden , Panmao Zhai , Albert Klein Tank
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: "Model Mean Climate" for AR4]]
Date: Mon Dec 20 17:55:56 2004
Cc: richard.wood@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Kevin,
I will be around tomorrow (so Dec 21) until Dec 23 inclusive. Then again from Jan 3.
I will be checking email during the break from Dec 28 onwards.
Are you in control of the glossary additions and modifications?
As to change of base period – this seems like a decision for the whole of WGI. To redo
the global temperature average, I can just move the series up/down, but this isn’t
the correct way to do it. I should talk out a new base period from all the individual
stations and recalculate anomalies for the oceans. For the oceans this isn’t a
problem, but the land it is a serious problem. Many stations have good (i.e. near
complete base periods for 1961-90) but I’ll lose hundreds, maybe over a thousand,
stations if I went to 1981-2000.
For both surface temperature and precipitation we don’t have spatially complete datasets
(like models) so it will be quite difficult.
For the circulation indices (like SOI and NAO) based on station pairs there is a
variance term (SD). Some of the character of the series will change. We could
easily adjust all these series by simple offsetting but it isn’t doing it properly.
I’m in the throws of a project with the HC checking all the 61-90 normals we have
for series that are incomplete, to ensure we don’t have any biases. This has taken
quite a time and I don’t want to waste the effort.
The arguments of Albert and Dave make a lot of sense – continuity with the TAR etc.
These sort of things can be explained, but then the FOD will not be compatible with
all the papers we are referring to. This will lead to lots of confusion. I would like to
stick with 1961-90. I don’t want to change this until 1981-2010 is complete, for 3
reasons : 1) We need 30 years and 81-10 will get all the MSU in nicely, and 2)
I will be near retirement !! 3) is one of perception. As climatologists we are
often changing base periods and have done for years. I remember getting a number
of comments when I changed from 1951-80 to 1961-90. If we go to a more recent one
the anomalies will seem less warm – I know this makes no sense scientifically, but
it gives the skeptics something to go on about ! If we do the simple way, they will say
we aren’t doing it properly.
Best idea might be to show some maps of 1981-2000 minus 1961-90 to show spatially
where it makes a difference for temp and precip. Showing it is quite small and likely
within the intermodel differences for years which are only nominally 1981-2000. This
might
keep both sides happy.
We also probably need to consider WGII. Also the paleo chapter will find 1981-2000
impossible. 1961-90 is difficult for them but not insurmountable.
Cheers
Phil
PS Fatima has received all the emails – her email only came to me. Not heard from
some of our LAs.

At 15:44 20/12/2004, Kevin Trenberth wrote:

Hi all
I have received comments on this from Albert, David, Dave, and Jim. Some below.
As I commented to Jim, the choice of a base period affects the zero line. In some of
our plots, namely the ones that have series of bars from the zero line to the anomaly
value, thereby infilling between the anomaly and the zero, the zero base value is
greatly emphasized. This is in contrast to a simple time series with points joined,
especially if the zero line is not also drawn. In the latter case, it is simple to move
the axis up or down to fit with the new base period. But it makes a bigger difference
to the bar plots. Now maybe that is a comment on the use and utility of bar plots,
because the relative values do not change.
The choice also affects any anomaly plots for any subperiod. But this is where the
comparison with models is most likely to occur. In this case there is a spatial pattern
to the offset, namely the difference between means for 1961-90 and 1981-2000. We could
also derive that difference for certain fields and provide it to modelers to enable
comparisons with our plots. For trends over certain subperiod, this makes no
difference.
It seems that whatever we do, we will need an extra appendix explaining some of this and
perhaps even giving plots of these differences.
In the meantime, let me suggest to those of you making computations, that you consider
doing it both ways, rather than having to go back and do it over later.
Regards
Kevin
I agree with Albert, this would make comparisons with the TAR figures difficult.
Dave
Klein Tank, Albert wrote:
Hi Kevin,

My immediate response is that the choice for another base period will probably not
affect our assessment of results, but it will change all figures w.r.t the TAR. This
will be difficult to communicate and will take much more space to explain.

Albert.
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: "Model Mean Climate" for AR4]
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 13:06:44 +0000
From: Parker, David (Met Office) [1]
To: Kevin Trenberth [2]
References: [3]
Kevin

It is obviously possible to use 1980-2000 though it would require some
data-processing work. The main objection is that anomalies (of
temperature) would appear to be reduced relative to previous
publications and readers/policymakers could become confused. A minor
objection is that 1980-2000 is a bit short. Satellite data are of course
in its favour. In due course, 1981-2010 will be ideal!

Regards

David

On Fri, 2004-12-17 at 21:17, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
> All
> Please note the discussion below. Note the proposed base period of
> 1980-2000. Can we get your reactions? If it is decided to use this,
> what difficulties would it create? Other comments?
> Kevin
>
> ——– Original Message ——–
> Subject:
> Re: “Model Mean Climate” for AR4
> Date:
> Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:14:58 -0700
> From:
> Kevin Trenberth
> [4]
> To:
> Wood, Richard
> [5]
> CC:
>
> References:
> [6]
>
> Richard
>
> The current base period being used in Chapter 3 is anomalies
> determined with respect to the 1961-1990 base period. In
> observations there is a strong emphsis on using 30 year periods and
> the more recent one, 1971-2000 is not yet available. We would need to
> discuss whether to try to switch to that. It certainly won’t be in
> any ZOD. Otherwise, though, we are placing a lot of emphasis on
> trends from 1979 on. The grounds for this are 1) The 1976-77 shift
> seems to be about when anthropogenic climate change took off: prior to
> then we are under the realm of natural variability (basically a TAR
> result); and 2) 1979 is when a whole bunch of satellite data and
> other analyses (like global reanalyses) become much more reliable and
> global. So 1979 is the closest proxy to 1976/77.
>
> If 1981-2000 is to be used, it will, of course, include some climate
> perceptible climate change that may influence peceptions of
> anomalies. But I agree there is a lot to be said for consistency.
> Moreover, it is manageable for observational data bases. Because of
> the satellite effects on obs it is important to start on or after 1979
> and stop while we still have obs. So for round numbers 1981-2000 makes
> most sense. I think that was the conclusion we came to in Trieste,
> but it is not reflected in any material I have seen yet in our
> chapter.
>
> Phil is not available till after New Year, I believe.
>
> Regards
> Kevin
>
> Wood, Richard wrote:
> > Dear Jerry and other CLAs,
> >
> > Jerry: would you be willing to do this please, once some text is agreed?
> > All: any comments on the proposed text? (esp from observational chapters
> > re meaning periods). An early response would be appreciated as if we
> > send this to PIs it needs to be done as soon as possible.
> >
> >
> > We’ve just had a meeting of Chapter 8 LAs in San Francisco. One issue
> > that came up was what period of what run to use for the analysis of the
> > ‘mean climate’ in the AR4 models, for Chapter 8. Clearly we hope there
> > will be a number of diagnostic projects looking at the models over the
> > next few months, and the more uniformly that analysis can be done the
> > better.
> >
> > To cut a long story short, we felt that given the choice it would be
> > most appropriate to define models’ ‘mean climate’ by looking at the
> > 1981-2000 mean from the all forcings 20th Century runs (or the ensemble
> > mean if there is an ensemble). That would be consistent with the base
> > period Chapter 10 is using for the projections. We recognise that there
> > could be all sorts of reasons why that is not appropriate in particular
> > cases, both scientific and practical (e.g. the observational dataset
> > covers another period, or a longer time mean is needed because of
> > particular modes of variability, or there is a problem with model drift
> > or trends). So we wouldn’t want to be prescriptive, but all other things
> > being equal we would suggest that as the analysis period. If there are
> > no show-stoppers for this, we were thinking it would be good to send out
> > a brief email to the PIs of the diagnostic projects to request that they
> > bear this in mind in their analysis. Jerry, there were a few other
> > topics that might be raised in such an email and Karl Taylor will
> > contacting you about those.
> >
> > To be definite, I suggest below some straw-man text that could be sent
> > out.
> >
> > Thanks and best wishes,
> > Richard
> >
> > “Defining model ‘mean climate’:
> > In defining the ‘mean climate state’ of a model for comparison against
> > observations there are number of choices that could be made, e.g. use
> > model ‘control runs’ (which may have either preindustrial or present day
> > trace gases), or use the ‘20th Century all forcings’ runs (many of which
> > are available as ensembles started from varying initial conditions). For
> > the 20th Century integrations there is also a choice of meaning period.
> > It is recognised that the optimal choice for a given problem may depend
> > on a number of factors including the period over which obervations are
> > available, and the need for a non-drifting or non-trending model
> > solution. We also recognise that some projects have already begun their
> > analysis based on a particular choice. We therefore do not wish to
> > prescribe a solution to this problem and leave it to the judgement of
> > individual projects. However, in cases where there is a choice, we wish
> > to encourage as much uniformity in the analysis as possible, and
> > therefore propose that other things being equal, model mean climate is
> > defined based on the 1981-2000 period of the ‘all forcings 20th
> > Centrury’ runs (or the ensemble mean where appropriate).”
> >
> >

Nov 30, 2009 - 8:39 pm 40. Frank Reality:

I’m a skeptic, but suppose there is AGW. If you were really seeking solutions, wouldn’t you want the scientifically strong, innovative and creative societies like the United States having the financial ability to research and develop energy saving technologies, clean energy sources and highly efficient transmission systems to minimize the impact of AGW?

But no, Copenhagen gives an unelected and unaccountable quasi-government body unprecedented power to select winner and loser nations not based on any reasonable, objective or fair measurement.

They aren’t really interested in solving AGW or mitigating it – they’re interested in gathering totalitarian power and control over the world’s nations.

Nov 30, 2009 - 9:02 pm 41. Marina:

JUST FOR FUN:

a great song “HIDE THE DECLINE” by the “Minnesotans For Global Warming”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk

Nov 30, 2009 - 11:28 pm 42. John "birther" Samford:

Two questions before I start this download;
Has anyone run this data thru word cloud?
Has anyone done a binary search on it for AL Gore, Al or Gore? AG?
3 questions. Is there a coordinator for this project? It would go a lot smoother if there was a little thought put into avoiding different people doing the same research. It would also be nice to have a place to post ideas about what to look for.
PJM has enough regulars to pretty much go thru the data with a fine tooth comb in very little time.
The big AGW event ( Copenhagen? ) isn’t that far off.
I doubt that anything short of an asteroid strike will make them slow down and think, but we owe history the effort.

Dec 1, 2009 - 2:54 am 43. Brian:

BC thinks a powerpoint slide proves there is science behind it… Nevermind the figures behind it are doctored. But even if there is the assumption that the world IS warming. It is still a HUGE stretch to say man is the prime agent for change. When it is a FACT that many times in earths history the world had been significantly warmer than it is now. It even managed to somehow survive it.
ANother simple fact, cold weather kills more people than warm. Try getting your garden to grow in a snow storm.

Dec 1, 2009 - 3:51 am 44. John "birther" Samford:

AGW is a label used by skeptics, NOT believers.

The Earth is warming. Or cooling. That is a fact. One that can be proven beyond a shadow of doubt by many methods. What causes it is the issue. The Socialists claim humans are causing it. That is because their agenda is to control ALL humans. You cannot do that with force when you are weak, which the left is. You cannot do it with logic, when you have no facts on you side. What you can do is use Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt (FUD, a sales technique) to trick people into allowing them selves to be controlled.
Socialists want to control everything, yet they have no military power or numbers advantage. What they do bring to the table is organization and dedication.
Use that organization and dedication to spread fear that everyone will die from global warming and the only way to save yourself is to left the Socialists take over.
Then stand back and watch the lemmings pour in.

You have a fact; The Earth undergoes warming and cooling cycles at approximately 17,000 year intervals, followed by the big lie; The Earth’s current cycle is man made.
Classic Socialist propaganda as developed by Goebbles.

Speaking of Goebbles, here is link to some of his speeches;
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goebmain.htm

The counter for lies is fact.

Dec 1, 2009 - 5:00 am 45. Jack in Silver Spring:

Roger – Some of the AGW defenders commenting on PJM blogs about Climategate have accused those authoring the blogs as being on the take from energy companies. This blockbuster of a column by Brett Stephens on the WSJ site (dated Nov. 30, 2009) shows that AGW proponets were recipients of a huge amount of money. So, who’s on the take now?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574566124250205490.html

Dec 1, 2009 - 5:47 am 46. Dwight:

The more one reads ALL of the emails (into January 2005), the more you see how agenda driven most of the discussions have been on both sides in our internet blather.

The warmists would have to admit that there is a lot of conflicting or just unclear or unreliable data and models, and the skeptics would have to admit that the scientists ARE trying to take into consideration, sunspots, volcanoes etc., things they are accused of completely ignoring.

I actually respect the scientists more after my reading so far, which is NOT to say that I have been convinced that we absolutely need draconian restrictions of carbon emissions.

The easy meme is to portray them as completely agenda driven. Many have, I think, an underlying agenda that climate is important and fascinating (go figure) and that meaning can be made from all their data. Skeptics tend to say that they don’t need to know anything, except what might DISPROVE AGW.

Conclusion so far: The matter is not “settled” but even if it were, many of the skeptics would say that it was NOT.

Dec 1, 2009 - 6:14 am 47. rachel peepers:

Sometimes I think about world issues in terms of cartoons. Like the recent flap over global warming.

For years, the world’s most learned scientific global warming community has talked about the proximate need for action to save the warming planet. To my way of thinking, they’ve spoken and written with the certainty of a car dealership manager in convince mode that you’re getting the deal of the century on the car of the millenium.

Now, however, keeping the analogy alive, facts are coming out that you paid top dollar for a lemon. A beautiful car with wires inside the engine all cockamamily strung together. To the uneducated eye, things might look okay, but nonetheless, some miscreants put the wires together in a way that guarantees many costly repairs.

When we change gears and get back to the subject at hand, apparent global climate fraud, a cartoon comes to mind.

It’s that Jones guy along with the other pukes at that British temperature propanganda center tossing a ball around. Well, not really a ball.
More like 20 pounds of military grade high explosives shaped to look like a ball with a lit fuse at one end. But they’re smiling like that friendly car salesman, apparently
because US TV networks, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and MSNBC aren’t covering what seems like a story on global warming book cooking. Whatever bad stuff
they’ve done appears to have no chance of hurting their credibility. On the theory, I assume, that if it isn’t on network news in America it doesn’t exist.

Unfortunately, their belief in the lack of network coverage amounting to proof that their global warming alarmist propaganda is safe in
a Gorian lock box somewhere sure seems to be misplaced.

All of which leads me to one possible hypothesis. Which could throw a monkey wrench into the whole shebang.

Might these government approved news broadcast stations have gone out of business? What other reason can there be for not covering the story?

Ordinarily, believing in the scientific method, I’d turn on my TV
just to check for sure whether they’re off the air. But deductive reasoning makes it unnecessary. How could a story this huge not be carried by these great time-trusted state of the art networks. Unthinkable. Flies in the face of grade school reasoning. Let’s see, the TV stations covered the Kennedy killing, covered space launches, covered Obama’s inauguration, covered Katrina, covered the exposing of the Pentagon Papers.

Yes, without a doubt, they must be out of business.

But there’s another fly in the ointment.

Fox, Obama’s most hated station, which he says isn’t a news station is, in fact, covering what many refer to as Climategate.

Hence, in my cartoon, they’re tossing around the ball of military grade TNT that has a lit fuse. It’s only a matter of time before it explodes in their face.

Personally, I’m delighted the New York times and Fox are still in business, providing both print and broadcast coverage of this apparently huge story of scientist book cookers. Climategate. Kind of catchy though not very original.

An aside, I deduce all these broadcast news organizations’ crews, from production to administrative to on camera people, are now out of work. A shame. I wonder what happened. I was aware viewership was down but,
but I thought that was simply a function of the explosion of other news sources like the Al Gore invented internet.

Problem is, if there was fraud, it takes just one major station like Fox to spread it all over the world. Eventually, I fear, even an Al Gore lock
box with all incriminating information is vulnerable to intensive search crews.

The scientific book cookers, ( I hate to call them frauds which opens them up to criminal and civil prosecution or worse) I’m afraid have a problem on their hands. They must feel like Hitler when the battle of the bulge ground to a halt; his days were numbered. The ethically challenged scientists must feel like Napoleon at Waterloo, like the baseball steroid deniers such as Rafael Palmeiro and Mark McGuire. All cheaters who got caught lying red handed. Gosh, I forgot Bill Clinton. And John Kerry. And Al Franken. Bill Maher. Jon Stewart. The lying leaders of the 21st century. Though Stewart misstates with wit. I do like the way he dresses up his lies before he offers them for public consumption.

I wonder how the girls on the view will handle this? I have no idea. I think Sherry still believes the world is flat. If you caught her first time on the View you know what I mean.

Golly gee, maybe President Obama can make heads and tails of this mess. Maybe he can print a trillion or so dollars to rework the thrown away raw data. I’ve got to hand it to Obama. He doesn’t let money stand in the way of progress. He just prints more. Got to admire someone with that kind of determination. Reminds me of the phrase, “damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.” Just think, in just 11 months, Obama’s spent more tax dollars than all the other President’s combined. The downside, of course, is lowering the value of the dollar, causing hyperinflation and, in effect,
causing America to go bankrupt. Which, though, to President Obama’s way of thinking is the first step in truly redistribution this nation’s
wealth. Before wealth can be redistributed, our system of government must be destroyed and Obama, if unchecked by your vote, is well on his way to destroying the country you knew and loved. That almost 2 million brave American soldiers died for. Liberty. Freedom. To Obama they’re just words on a teleprompter. To the soldiers who laid their lives on the alter of freedom, of course, liberty and freedom meant much more.

I guess it’s to be expected when you elect, and let me tell it like it is, a communist President. It’s communist with a small “c”, but
President Obama, unfortunately, for the red, white and blue, is a communist nonetheless.

If Obama gets ObamaCare and Cap and Trade through, we’ll be the highest taxed nation on this earth. Obama will get what he wants. And I might do a cartoon with Ma American and Pa American with their heads in the sand.

I just hope you can get yourselves out to vote while you still can afford the trip to the polls.

Dec 1, 2009 - 6:18 am 48. JED:

37. valerie:
Jed,

Before you get to any of those questions, first ask, “How the hell do you attach significance to differences in temperature that are less than the margin of error of the individual measurements?
My skeptic light flashed when Al Gore first announced that the pending global doom was based on an increase of 0.8 degrees F. over the last 100 years, based of juxaposed measurements. Then that wee number was to be brought from somewhere, somehow and projected into the future so that Florida would sink. Now, if I pay more energy taxes, I can still save Miami?

Dec 1, 2009 - 7:43 am 49. Pragmatist:

First it was overpopulation but when that did not work for them they told us the Earth was Cooling and when that BS was exposed they invented the Y2K bug but that fizzled then it was SARS but that was a Red Herring which is why we have H1N1 now as the big scare that isn’t. But the MOTHER LODE was Global Warming I mean the Earth was getting a bit warmer then BUMMMER the warming stopped so it became Climate Change and CO2 a POLLUTANT and MAN made CO2 TOXIC. But hey the MSM and all the TV Stations and all the Politicos bought it hook line and sinker. But Oh Hell BUSTED the emails from the CRU and the outrage around the world what to do. I know lets count on our buddies in the MSM to bury the story and put our heads in the sand and carry on as normal. Yep good idea and that is EXACTLY what they are doing.

Dec 1, 2009 - 7:47 am 50. tanstaafl:

Thanks Marina #41

Dec 1, 2009 - 8:43 am 51. Constitution First:

We, people, are at THE crossroads.

Given the undeniable evidence of wrong doing, by highly educated persons, placed in positions of enormous power, to roadmap the future, of billions of people and trillions of dollars and charged with the determination of the worlds industrial/economic direction, there could not have been a higher betrayal of trust.

Given the enormity of the offense, consider the reaction of your government and press, then ask yourself: do these people get it? Is their agenda and ideology so paramount, it trumps truth? Dare I trust my life and my children’s future in the hands of such arrogant bull-headiness?

Damn the truth, they are going shove Marxism right down your throat, and your gonna like it.

Welcome to 0bama-world.

Dec 1, 2009 - 8:55 am 52. Bohemond:

BC the caveman really thinks a link to Carole Browner’s freakin’ EPA actually proves something? .

Dec 1, 2009 - 10:24 am 53. tanstaafl:

#45, from your WSJ link, the prominence of the money connection in the whole longstanding AGW debate, débacle, agenda…whatever you want to call it.

Or one example among many on how “science” today might come to be corrupted.*

“None of these outfits is per se corrupt, in the sense that the monies they get are spent on something other than their intended purposes. But they depend on an inherently corrupting premise, namely that the hypothesis on which their livelihood depends has in fact been proved.”

*(personally, I find suppression of information about negative outcomes in drug trials equally abhorrent)

Dec 1, 2009 - 10:31 am 54. tanstaaflt:

…Carole Browner’s freakin’ EPA actually proves something?

You mean Carole Browner, the dedicated (really really dedicated) Marxist ?

Geez, so many of Barry’s picks seem to be in love with socialism and wax eloquent over guys like Chavez, Castro & Mao. The constitutional republic, not so much.

“Until last week, Carol M. Browner, President-elect Barack Obama’s pick as global warming czar, was listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for “global governance” and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.”

Dec 1, 2009 - 10:39 am 55. TexEd:

We need a place to build a data base and a methodology to add to it. I’ve just spent time on “www.federalspending.org” and have located the enterprises that EPA gave money to over the years.
I pretty much know what “IBM” is, but there are so many small, arcanely named enterprises and it is impossible to know if one or more are owned by Mann and his significant other.’First, can we identify the top 10 to 25 alleged hoaxers? Then, we need a detailed CV on each with organizational affiliations, affiliations that can be tracked against data bases. The end will help tie people together and people to money.
We already know that Gore and the UN agency got Nobel thingees and that ties them together. We know that Gore will make millions from this scam. It is, therefore, a reasonable hypothesis that the UN folks will also make millions from the scam.
These guys have all left paper trails that will prove their perfidy; it was “established science” so they had little need to cover their tracks.
The captive media will do nothing! But, we should be able to discover many things from existing records and, maybe, at the same time, help bury the captive and stupid media.

Dec 1, 2009 - 1:12 pm 56. BC:

Yeah, the EPA, the NOAA, and every other government connected environmental agency & lab, both here in this country and elsewhere, as well as every university connected lab and research facility, have all joined together for some dark conspiracy to, umm….understand global climate!!! Friggin idiots. It wouldn’t be so bad if this stuff stayed within the right wing nutosphere, but nooo….our fearless, responsible corporate media is doing its usual researchless, random talking head “coverage”. Useless as usual.

Dec 1, 2009 - 3:10 pm 57. howiem:

It appears that the Ipcc is engaged in a massive coverup by having their archives removed from the Internet, at least the WaybackMachine http://web.archive.org. To verify this go to the latter web site and search for http://ipcc.ch. Twso days ago did this and was able to find some of the archives, but today I tried it and got either errors or “Archive Removed” notices.

On their organization page, the IPCC now says that “It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters ” http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.htm. It looks like a massive coverup in well underway.

Dec 1, 2009 - 3:58 pm 58. Donna V.:

Well, well, the “nontroversy” grows.

In Australia, the opposition party has just elected a new leader, Tony Abbott, who is strongly against the energy taxation scheme being foisted on the Aussies. Abbott is using the Climategate scandal to argue against the ETS and it’s very unlikely that the Aussie PM, Kevin Rudd will be able to pass it in time for Copenhagen, as was the plan.

And Mann, BC’s saint of the Holy Hockey Stick, is now under investigation by the university. Gee, BC, will Penn State’s Mann end up in the state pen? One can always hope,…,:-)

Dec 1, 2009 - 5:23 pm 59. Donna V.:

Heh. The Australian Parliament just voted down the ETS, their version of Cap and Trade. Looked like a sure thing just a few weeks ago.

Must remember to pick up some Aussie wines next time I grocery shop,…,

Dec 1, 2009 - 7:27 pm 60. Bear:

15. tanstaafl:

I watched the entire video. The second half of it is the most compelling. Pretty much confirms what I’ve known intuitively for years. I thought reading the harry readme txt was enough for me.

BTW who is BC and why does he think he can persuade us with his gibberish? It seems, to be in favor of this theory, you have to be very thin skinned.

Dec 1, 2009 - 8:49 pm 61. Joe:

I read a report not too long ago… can’t remember where. Anyway, it explained the correlation between carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and global temperature. It explained that rising temperature caused an increase in CO-2… NOT the other way around.

Has anyone else read about this?

It seems that someone in the science community should try to make himself heard regarding this.

Dec 2, 2009 - 7:58 am 62. DeeDeeWilson:

In reply to #16, John Skookum’s note,
ohn Skookum:

“How do tags get assigned? You need them for ‘Hughes’ and ‘LTRR’. Malcolm Hughes is the tree ring witch-doctor who helped Mann write the original hockey stick paper in the late 90s. ***Would love to see the complete raw data for his core samples and compare them to the data sets selected for dozens of other alarmist studies*** [emphasis mine].

Nov 30, 2009 – 11:04 am”

I got the entire package from Wikileaks last night (01/12/2009) and in the first half dozen or so emails from Jones, he is writing back and forth to a Russian climatologist, and they are talking about the “… 314 tree ring [counting] sites”. Dummies that we are, we’d assume that ’sites’, plural, would mean 314 groups of trees, all over the Siberian tundra. Nope! “Ah doan sink so, Lucy!” They are basing all this information on *314* individual TREES, all in the same general area, on the south edge of the tundra.

I’d recommend going to Wikileaks.org, to this page, https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails,_data,_models,_1996-2009. and then, about half way down the page, is this link to the whole schlmahzzle, all the publications, the crooked programs, the doctored data sets, and the incriminating emails. https://secure.wikileaks.org/leak/climactic-research-unit-foi-leaked-data.zip

Everything PJ Media has written is borne out in the raw emails and other information. Some of the PDFs are absolutely astonishing in their duplicitous exaggerations.

If this doesn’t get into the MSM to debunk the whole AGW thing, then we have even more reason to believe that they are all a pack of liars and a pep squad for ‘Good Ol’ Barry Soetero’ and his merry gang of thieves.

… or simply duplicitous, scientifically illiterate and innumerate shills for the whole One World movement.

DeeDee in AZ

Dec 2, 2009 - 1:57 pm 63. Btok:

Time is getting short and it is coming down to the fact, that soon ( December 7 to December 18 ) I will have to pray to the good Lord to maintain our freedoms and not allow our leaders to sign the Copenhagen Treaty, which will take away our liberties, let go and let God-this being a challenge to our Lord and Saviour? However, while there is still time to prevent the loss of a lifetime, perhaps loss of life it’s self – I will do what I am able to fight for our freedoms! The whole Climate Change agenda is a proven fraud and racketeering, but the United Nations and Globalist governments don’t care as that is just the excuse instrument they have used to ensnare us, they are going to try to push it through anyway! Has everybody out there become a tree hugger? The tree will be standing 100 years from now, but will you be looking at the tree, from inside the fence of a Concentration Camp? Anyone out there want to fight to maintain their freedom anymore? Please do all you can to preserve freedom in North America!

Check out what Government is doing behind your back at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU

Canadians: to request that PM Harper doesn’t sign the Copenhagen Treaty, thereby causing Canadians to lose
their Sovereignty and Freedom email the PM at: pm@pm.gc.ca

Any lawyers want to help out by filing this Copenhagen Treaty be classified as an illegal Treaty, in order to, help save Freedom in North America? ( Unlimited Promotion Opportunity Here For a Law firm to Gain a favorable high profile credibility! )

Dec 2, 2009 - 4:11 pm 64. Kent Clizbe:

The momentum is with us now. We must organize and press the issue.

We’ve set up a Yahoo Group where we can both archive data, and plan actions.

No Consensus–No Warming (NOC-NOW)–Stop the Scam–Halt the IPCC

We have a quickly growing Yahoo Group (CO2 is Plant Food), and a petition (NOC-NOW) that simply spells out a Declaration of Climate Independence.
We also have a Facebook Group: No Consensus–No Warming (NOC-NOW)–Stop the AGW Scam.

The petition will be provided to the US Congress, the White House, the UN, the IPCC, the EU Commission, and other representative bodies involved in “Climate Change” policy deliberations.

We will be heard.

Please join the group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/co2isplantfood

And sign the petition: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/NOC_NOW/

Join Facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=191580771509

We can stop this scam, together.

Kent Clizbe
NOC-NOW
Stop the Scam—Halt the IPCC
No Consensus—No Warming

Dec 4, 2009 - 10:31 am