Deconstructing ClimateGate’s Smoking-Gun Email
A leading light of climate change inadvertently exposes AGW’s crumbling foundation.
The evidence that the human-caused global warming/climate change effort may constitute one of the biggest scams in all of human history continues to mount. The contents of emails and other data surreptitiously obtained from a UK climate research facility add further fuel to that already burning-hot fire.
Predictably, while pretending to give the incident and its fallout reasonable coverage, the establishment media has generally ignored the most damning email of them all. Authored by Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, it addresses what has been happening with temperature changes in recent years, i.e., not a lot, with a slight cooling trend.
Trenberth’s note reacts to an October 9 article by Paul Hudson, a weather presenter and climate correspondent at the previously climate hysteria-infested BBC. In “What Happened to Global Warming?” Hudson has the unmitigated gall to note that “for the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.”
Hudson, clearly in response to heavy criticism, reiterated his article’s original theme in a follow-up blog post, writing that “none of the climate models suggested that global temperatures would not rise any further for at least another 10 years, which is what we have observed.”
Taken at face value and combined with even a modicum of common sense, Trenberth’s treatment of Hudson’s piece and his other accompanying comments clearly cast serious doubt on the scientific credibility and integrity of the entire AGW (anthropogenic global warming) enterprise (bold is mine):
From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider, Myles Allen, peter stott, “Philip D. Jones”, Benjamin Santer, Tom Wigley, Thomas R Karl, Gavin Schmidt, James Hansen, Michael Oppenheimer
Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.
This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on Saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather). …
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
CERES stands for the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System run by NASA.
Trenberth has “acknowledged the email is genuine,” according to Kim Zetter at Wired’s Threat Level blog. His email leaves two alternatives:
- There really is a “lack of warming at the moment” (a decade-plus “moment”).
- Warming is still occurring, but “our observing system is inadequate,” i.e., “we can’t trust those lying thermometers and other temperature-measuring devices. It can’t be computer-modeled CERES data, which is telling us what we want to believe.”
Per Ms. Zetter, Trenberth’s defense in the wake of the email’s release chooses door number two:
“It says we don’t have an observing system adequate to track it, but there are all other kinds of signs aside from global mean temperatures — including melting of Arctic sea ice and rising sea levels and a lot of other indicators — that global warming is continuing,” he says.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
Tom Blumer owns a training and development company based in Mason, Ohio, outside of Cincinnati. He presents personal finance-related workshops and speeches at companies, and runs BizzyBlog.com.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
27 Comments
1. Jack in Silver Spring:Mr. Blumer – It is not enough to show that there AGW is real (which it appears not to be). Supposing, though, AGW is real. What then must be shown is that the benefits of attempting to supress whatever is causing it exceed the costs of doing so. That has not really been done. Morovers, insofar as these purported climatologists do not even remotely know has to use statistics and economics correctly, they should have no input into the economic decisions about what to do to counter purported AGW.
Nov 25, 2009 - 4:56 am 2. Spinoneone:As the author and many other thinking people have said so often over the past decade, the guys pumping out this bilge are not interested in stopping AGW. On the contrary, they want to promote it and thereby elevate themselves into part of the ruling elite of their desired new world government. Once in control of most of the globe’s economy and governments they will simply let AGW die a natural death. Afterall, the Liberal Fascists will then control the world, which is their oft stated goal anyhow.
Nov 25, 2009 - 5:10 am 3. SimonSays:For a bunch of articles on the failings of climate models, go to this web page: http://www.c3headlines.com/climate-models/
The breadth and number of failings is stunning and confirms the nonsense that Blumer writes of.
Nov 25, 2009 - 5:59 am 4. Tony R:Anyone with half a brain can see that “global warming” is a money-making scam. Al Gore is peddling it for Heaven sake – that should be raising instant alarm bells!!!.
It was always just a question of waiting patiently for the evidence to come along to prove that the whole thing is a load of jibberish based on the usual hippy pseudo-science practiced by over-reacting twits.
Perhaps now the floodgates of genuine scientific reason will open wide and wash the morons away?
Well, at least until the next Impending Man-Made Ice-Age panic which should be due to kick in by by 2025.
Pfffff
Nov 25, 2009 - 6:04 am 5. Concerned Citizen:Tom, your article is an excellent recap of the damaging emails. However, a litigator looking at those (and that phase is coming, mind you) could convince a judge or jury that “that wasn’t really what they meant”, “they meant XXXX”. Most lawyers are not interested in Truth, they only care about the Law and while these emails seem very damaging to us, they are out of context and serve to demonstrate “state of mind”, which is important for determining fraud.
The actual fraud occurred with the models, which were tinkered with so much they don’t have any remaining basis in reality.
Look at these graphs, especially the one on the bottom of the page:
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/0000000000000590
This is how a large warming time on the left goes away and a minor warming blip on the right (our present day) turns into a hockey stick.
I wonder if the FTC would consider this “truth in advertising”?
I’m not a lawyer, I’ve just been through 9 lawsuits with various businesses I’ve had and now have a law degree from Hard Knocks U.
Nov 25, 2009 - 6:13 am 6. Randy from New Jersey:Simonsays: thanks for the link. That was some interesting reading. A few months ago a friend sent me an article on a lecture given by an MIT climatologist (my friend is an MIT alum). The climatologist discussed the accuracy of temperatures reported by land-based stations, particularly in Siberia. He noted that, during the Soviet era, reported temperatures were used to determine the allocation of heating fuel to Siberian settlements. This practice stopped with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989…and Siberia has warmed alarmingly since that time (no longer a need to report extra-low temps, since it won’t get you any more heating fuel).
Nov 25, 2009 - 6:14 am 7. Peter K. Boucher:I’m as skeptical as the next guy, but one part of your argument bothers me. “…sea levels that may or may not be rising by less than the thickness of a dime annually won’t cut it.”
Approximately 361,132,000 km² of the earth’s surface is covered by water. To add one millimeter in depth to that water requires A LOT of melting (since each km² requires 1,000,000 liters of water to rise by 1 mm). Around 361,132,000,000,000 more liters of water are melted each year than are frozen in order to raise sea levels by 1mm.
Sea level rising by 1mm/year is not an alarming consequence, but you can’t melt that much more ice than you freeze without rising temperatures, can you?
Nov 25, 2009 - 6:21 am 8. JAY:All the global warming information must be made public: all the raw data, all the data modifications, all the computer code, and all the correspondence surrounding the research. No study that fails to disclose all this information should be given any credence.
Nov 25, 2009 - 6:29 am 9. jim2:I think measuring or estimating global ice mass may be the most important of all. I hope a consensus method can be achieved and reasonably accurate data of the mass could be tracked.
Consider, if one has a glass of water at about 0 degrees C with ice cubes in it and gradually applies heat, the water temperature will hardly change. Instead, the mass of the ice will decrease. Once the ice has essentially all melted, the bulk water temperature will rise quickly.
The earth’s overall biosphere may act somewhat like a glass of water, with the global ice mass playing the role of the ice cubes in the above example. If so, we need to track the global ice mass to see what is really happening.
Nov 25, 2009 - 6:44 am 10. Bear:Jack, based on what I’ve read, they don’t know much about programming either…this ’science’ truly requires a multidisciplinary approach, but that would mean sharing not only data but money. drawing a conclusion then backfilling to support it is not science.
Nov 25, 2009 - 6:54 am 11. Curly Smith:What Trenberth is saying with “Warming is still occurring, but “our observing system is inadequate,”” is reasonable from the warmist point of view. According the Climateers, CO2 is solely responsible for global warming and global cooling. The Earth is a closed system without any external heat sources.
So, if it’s cooler in one area then, because it’s a closed system with an energy balance, it must be warmer in another area. We’re simply unaware of the alternative warming because of low funding and inadequate instrumentation.
Of course, Mr. Trenberth would then need to explain how a closed system with an energy balance can experience changes in the global average temperatures. Maybe he’ll suggest a computer model?
Nov 25, 2009 - 7:21 am 12. 2klbofun:I am now refering to man-made-global-warming as “Piltdown-Man-Made-Global-Warming” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_man)
Nov 25, 2009 - 7:47 am 13. Dark Helmet:This is all part of a grand scam. The heart of it being un control, 1 world government, planet of slaves.
You don’t need 4 PHD’s to know someone is peeing in your ear claiming it’s the worlds ice melting.
impeach obamay for being a liar and a traitor.
Nov 25, 2009 - 8:57 am 14. Sebastian Shaw:Send every single Global Warming fraud on a one way to trip to the Sun; it will be a most “noble sacrifice.” This includes Al Gore, President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, etc al. The shuttle will be enough to send them far, far away.
Nov 25, 2009 - 10:08 am 15. Kevin R.C. O'Brien:Let me get this straight. This cat Trenberth is allegedly a scientist. He has collected data which do not fit his theory. So he discards the data and seeks to collect other data which fit the theory. Anybody not seeing the problem with that?
I suppose it’s better than Mike “Piltdown” Mann, Phil Jones or Keith Briffa, who seem to have changed their data outright to fit the theory.
Just thumbing through the most recent SciAm, Mann or one of the others is cited on every fourth or fifth page! For what is shaping up to be one of history’s greatest science swindles.
Nov 25, 2009 - 11:08 am 16. Wil:Some of Dr. Jones’ e-mails openly and specifically admit to flat-out lying about raw climate data, as well as about climate data that had been collated and processed. He also encouraged a number of other prominent climate scientists to do the same, even detailing the best ways to mathematically cheat. Based on the way these things almost always pan out in the real world, Dr. Jones is probably just the tip of a very large iceberg.
Dr. Jones was well aware that his climate center was the leading center, of only four in the world, that was entrusted with generating, maintaining, collating and disseminating raw climate data. Dr. Jones openly admits to destroying data, hiding data, cherry picking data, and dishonestly processing data, knowing that the U.N. and thousands of other scientists, organizations, and governments would be using his falsified raw data to make trends and to draw conclusions. He did this knowing that government policies in dozens of countries (at least) and the use of hundreds of billions of dollars of tax payer’s money was at stake.
Going forward, we can not know which stories about the climate and about global warming are true, which stories are wild exaggerations, and which stories are complete fabrications. Until all climate scientists, and their data and models, have been investigated and cleaned up, my default position will be to assume that every climate story or global warming story that I see in the MSM is a flat out lie.
Nov 25, 2009 - 11:15 am 17. Marc Malone:#7 Boucher – As I understand it, the sea-levels rising measurement system is bogus, too. Many of the sensors are placed in areas inland where the land is settling as it cools long-term.
Melting ice does not raise the sea-levels. The water levels will stay almost exactly the same, except for the bit of ice actually on land then running down to the sea.
Nov 25, 2009 - 11:16 am 18. Dave72:The earth is flat. I have the data/model in my computer, but no one is allowed to see it. Please send more money for my research.
Nov 25, 2009 - 11:21 am 19. Henry chance:I like those polar bear pics for animal shields. The Canadian governmenrt still releases 800 polar bear hunting permits each year. If they start becoming extinct, they may lower the number.
Nov 25, 2009 - 11:53 am 20. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:Now it becomes clear why the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution was written. To remain free, we must exercise our right.
Nov 25, 2009 - 2:49 pm 21. danzo:Why don’t you arm yourself with some facts on climate change fundamentals.
From NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center:
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Zurich_Color.pdf
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/
Other sources:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html as a great primer.
http://www.leif.org/research/ a treasure trove once you understand the basics.
And this is just funny!
Nov 25, 2009 - 5:09 pm 22. JM Hanes:http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/predictions/
URL CORRECTIONS needed.
Tom, you have extra periods (pajamasmedia.com..) in two of your URLs which generate error pages:
[1] should be add further fuel [14] should be in Copenhagen
Sure would be nice to have a preview window in order to check my own URLs for errors (oh irony!).
Terrific piece! I’ve been looking for a concise, standalone article on the CRU info dump to pass along to the skeptic deniers in my address book.
Nov 25, 2009 - 5:23 pm 23. Oakley:Not only are these so-called “scientists” scum, but the MSM and their complicit silence is DEAFENING!! So is the silence in the scum pond of WASHINGTON!!!
Imagine if the skeptics and critics of warming had been caught with their pants down, the MSM and Washington elites (including Obama) would have been shouting it from the rooftops!
Keep this story front and center, don’t let up, everyone tell your relatives and friends at Thanksgiving dinner that they truly have something to be thankful for…that God is still sovereign and will not be mocked!
Nov 25, 2009 - 6:16 pm 24. info:http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-have-they-no-shame/#comments
commenter no. 20
name of commentor is : Info
or
====
http://uoftconservatives.blogspot.com/2009/04/dalton-sales-tax.html#comments
comments on Nov 26, 2009
Nov 26, 2009 - 12:13 pm 25. Stevo:If these scientists really believed in their Global warming scenario, then evidence that it is not happening should be greeted with great rejoicing- Hurrah we’re not all gonna die! It seems to me that this is wonderful news that should make us all beathe a little easier for a change.
Nov 27, 2009 - 6:05 pm 26. John Q. Public:Climategate
Let’s see:
a) subverting the peer review process
b) stacking the UN IPCC
c) obstruction of the Freedom on Information Act
d) breach of university and state ethics codes
… and we haven’t even talked about the data yet.
Climate Science – the new Ponzi scheme!
p.s. – Is this what Science is all about? Meet the new boss (science), same as the old boss (religion). When are they issuing funny hats to scientists?
Nov 28, 2009 - 11:43 am 27. J King:p.p.s. – Who needs Wall Street when you have Science?
The IPCC HAS to keep the crisis going so it can continue to exist. Regarding the global governance, remember that men have lusted for power and money throughout history; the IPCC and the AGW hypothesis provide both.
I’m an atmospheric scientist, and I certainly haven’t been convinced that global warming is primarily due to human activity. I AM convinced that the IPCC does not represent objective science.
Dec 10, 2009 - 3:20 pm