Saturday, 12 December 2009

Climate Gate

More fuel was recently added to the ClimateGate scandal by the emails, from scientists at the University of East Anglia which is a top centre for climate research (one of many). These were seized upon by deniers and sceptics as evidence that the scientists have after all this time twisted data in order to convince the public that global warming exists.

The leaked emails expressed frustration that scientists have had an inability to explain a temporary slowdown in warming and they did discussed ways to counter the campaigns of climate change deniers. You see they did this because it is very hard to explain global warming as temperatures move up and down every year. The climate is affected by many variables. Of course these scientists should be upfront and honest but they are not the only ones recording and looking at this data, then telling the world about it.

Based on 140 years of recorded data, 1998 remains the "warmest year on record". This is the problem for the scientist who are try to explain the trend and not the weather. However since 1998 the temperatures as a trend have gone down and then risen again as a trend (not year on year). This can be very hard to explain. However the last 10 years still contain the 8 highest temperatures on record. See the graph below.

Yes there have been variances in the past in global temperature before it was recorded. But these changes have been put down to other short term events like volcanoes (for example eruption of Tambora in 1815 or Mount Pinatubo in 1991) or meteorite hits like the Tunguska Event. Picture below is of the Tunguska Event.

If there was a conspiracy this would be the most amazing world wide conspiracy in history and to what end. How does this help the governments of the world? What, they can tax us more? How does this help the scientists? Why would so many put their name and careers at risk. Err so the government’s wants to get rid of oil and coal use on which so many industries depend and pay huge taxes into western governments also depend, why on earth would they do that?

Some how this ClimateGate conspiracy really doesn’t add up. I just can’t see it being a conspiracy myself. With 7 billion people on this planet and increase of 4 Million in just 50 years, how on earth can that not have an effect? Mass industrialisation, global pollution, lakes drying up, glaciers melting and less ice in the north pole.

It is happening now people, I don’t like it myself, I don’t want to change my life style too but I can’t deny it to me it just seem so obvious that there is man made global warming.

World population graph here

See Bracknell Blog Can the Climate Change Debate Wait?

See Bracknell Blog Do We Need a Population Policy?


  1. Nice to see you're an expert on climate. Words like "denier" trip off the tongues who believe character attacks serve as a suitable replacement for scientific lacunae. 1998 the hottest year in 140 years of records. OK - but what about the medieval warm period? Fact is CRU & UEA models do not match the real world. Go back and check and adjust the model? NO - name call instead or use "tricks" to get the results you want. Pathetic.

  2. Yeah maybe I should not say deniers, I guess it only applies to those which believe it is happening and deny it perhaps.
    Yeah im no expert and nor are most people, its how it appears to me.

    Im really not after any results, If there was no global warming or if it was proved that there was no global warming then that would suit me fine.

    Good point btw on the medieval warm period, I dont know alot about it TBH, I know there was one but I dont know why? tell me more

  3. Yes there is climate change now, yes there has been climate change before. Think is can we realy do anything about it. I for one an worried and dont deny it. Its there but I dont think we can do anything about it.

    Its the plant responding to the humans killing it I guess.

  4. By denier I mean people who have a vested interest in say global warming is not true.

    sceptic is people who do not believe it as they have to yet been convinced. I think that is fair enough. Im sceptical myself on alot of issues.

    again I hope its not true, it would just be the most amazing story if true, one that would bring down perhaps the UN, most governments and science. all im saying is its not worth the risk if it was true.

  5. "inability to explain a temporary slowdown in warming"

    Well not slowdown but a reversal & sayoing it is temporary is, at least, an evidence free assertion.

    Perhaps you could say exactly what that "vested interest" is & who has it. Being an honest sort you will, doubtless, have lamented long & loud, elsewhere, that prof Jones, having received £13.7 million from the government has a vested interest & that government, having used this fraud to enhance its power & raise taxes, has a vested interest in promoting eco-fascist lies. Nobody who is a liberal in the traditional meaning of the word, could ever fail to be outraged at such fraudulent empowerment by government.

  6. Well, 4 seconds of research revealed this from (the admittedly prone to gaming) Wikipedia ( "Global temperature records taken from ice cores, tree rings, and lake deposits, have shown that, taken globally, the Earth may have been slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval Warm Period' than in the early- and mid-20th century" (

  7. Thanks Matt.

    Neil. Look mate if your right they will be found out because if the climate does not heat up say in 20 years then we have a con. But then all these people will be discredited.

    How could they be so mad as do do something which will end in their downfall. After call we will see how much the climate will change for itself. if it does not then Neil, you have got them by the balls.

  8. dazmando,
    I am a scientist (Physics and Aerospace Engineering) and have read much of the literature. I started out accepting the AGW position until I had gone into the issue in depth. I am qualified to give an opinion on the subject, and have been a skeptic for many years. I find it offensive that you admit having little technical understanding on the subject, yet give a strong opinion. The large number of news media and politicians are also in that camp. If only highly qualified people that have INDEPENDENTLY reviewed the literature are counted, the skeptics are a large minority or even majority. However, nose counting is not science. The evidence, especially in light of climategate info seems to support that skeptics have been correct. We all agree that coming out of the little ice age resulted in some warming, and humans cause pollution (dust, smog, dirty water, etc.) but calling CO2 and methane as major causes of the warming is not supported , and thus no major problem will result. It is clear the issue is not AGW, but an attampt to form a world controlling group that uses these excuses to tax and control the sucessful countries.

  9. I dont believe in conspiracies either, but the info from east anglia stinks. They refused to share their data, and after repeated attempts under the freedom of info act, eventually said that the data had been lost !!!!!
    My gut feeling is that the west realise the oil is running out fast and see this as a peacefull way to wean us off the stuff, but I'm afraid I have gone from believer to skeptic.

  10. This is a few words about carl sagan

    Carl's forty year campaign for public science education was rooted in his dream of a wise and just society. Before anyone else, he recognized that a society wholly dependent on science and high technology could not hope to become a democracy if only a fortunate few possess the secrets of science's methods, laws and language. There are 400,000 children in the Bronx, a place both medically and educationally under-served.

    We are wholly dependent on science as a civilization. Anyone who claims these emails are taken out of context or are just a few emails. the body of those emails do something that goes beyond the climate and beyond any one man or woman. They have used our most holy institution of absolutes and truths to pervert AN ENTIRE GENERATION into bel;ieving that humanity is the enemy and must be stopped at all costs.

    These people have committed crimes against humanity and high treason against science as a whole. They have perverted the peer review process to a point where it is absolutely trash. We now have to question ALL politically driven science. Our world of absolute trust in the scientific community has been destroyed by the perversion of science for monetary gain. They have taken funds that could have been used to stop real pollution of our planet. They have duped us into a doomsday scenario with countless movies and articles and scare tactics. UNEP the world we want details how they planned to use schools and teachers to attack national sovereignty

    Please read EVERYTHING you can about these emails there is a ton of useful insight on the internet there is explanation of how they even perverted the mathematics in the computer codes the further their evil ends

    Wake Up and Read All About it. Read

  11. I can't believe that so many people believe that there is no man made global warming

  12. I think there's plenty of proof for no global warming in the October 12th e-mail of the head of the IPCC, who said it wasn't happening and they didn't know why it wasn't happening.

    Coming from the head of the IPCC, that's the proof you've been looking for.

  13. Thank Anonymous I am reading.

    Mike these email are indeed a scandal in themselves. But I do need much more proof im afraid. There are many companies who also pay scientist and I guess scientist have to get there money fom somewhere. I am currently looking for more independant opinion.

    Leonard I have written a post on your comment. Thnak you very much for your comment. I did not want to cause you any offense. As I am not a scientist like most I have to make up my own mind. My opinion have developed over many years.

    I guess you are saying that there is indeed warming but believe it is not effected greatly by man? is this correct?

    Even if this is the case I do also worry about other enviromental effects like land use and air pollution. Should we not try to reduced the use of coal and oil for this reason also?

  14. Matt Wikipedia have long shown what may politiely be called a truth free attitude to GW reporting. Here is a recent graph using Greenland ice cores which clearly shows a 1 degree differetial. May I also point out that anybody claiming to be able to detect a 0.03 C average differential across the world & centuries using oblique methods of meadsuring is clearly lying.

    Daz you say you will accept it is a con in 20 years time if there isn't warming. Since we have had 10 years already with net cooling that is a pretty long timescale. I am also sceptical that you would actually do so. Perhaps you can alleviate my fears by pointing to where you said 10 years ago that 10 years of cooling would not be sufficient to demonstrate cooling & you would require 30. I not you have not produced the evidence of vested interests & yet have not ghad the human decency to apologise to McIntyre.

    Your suggest that we should just keep pouring out $800 million a day to the eco-fascists for a total of 30 years on the of chance that they aren't lying theiving fascist scum - can I have your personal guarantee that if there is no significant warming you personally will refund the £8.7 trillion, plus interest?

  15. Sorry this graph

  16. Neil, I dont mean I would change my mind in 20 years time, I understand that there can be fluctuations in temperatures. If I am convinced that it is infact totally untrue then I would change my mind today.

    What I mean is (by 20 years could be 12 or 15 or whatever)that the people spinning this if it was the case that there is a scandle, it would be found out in time and they would pay a price for this. They would be stupid to con us when this kind of con could never come off permanently.

    Anyway how did you work out $800 million a day? Those greens dont look that rich too me, especially when compaired to energy companies.

  17. Well Daz you were the one who brought up 20 years - glad to see you moving down to 12 years. If there were you could have mentioned some other possible evidence that would convince you it wasn't true & I would still be interested in seeing you say what :-)

    Is that 12 years years of no warming or ANOTHER 12 years that would convince you since it has cooled since 1998?

    The "it would be found out some day" theory implies that no Ponzi scheme has ever been tried nor nor that medieval prelates ever tried to burn old ladies for witchcraft or Stalin to promote Lysenkoism. Unfortunately total justice does come about & I think it improbable that, for example, Prof Jones will repay the £13.7 million he got nor Al Gore his $ billion & Nobel, let alone that they will be given to those honest people denied promotion. Nor the $126 billion made annually from selling "carbon credits". What do you think?

    The $800 million a day cost of Kyoto worldwide was calculated on the Junkscience site. Looking at the carbon credit fraud they may have been conservative.

  18. Neil, Firstly it doesn't help me to believe that man made global warming does not exist if you yourself believes it. I have read your blog a few times and I cant forget the fact that you think and believe that the Lib Dems and even myself are Nazi's. One of the most maddest things I have ever read.

    Also I don't believe most things that Christopher Booker writes, I have already read this link before you sent it too me. He also believes that asbestos is safe and he believes in Intelligent Design something for which I could not agree on short of the lord come down to earth and telling me that its true.

    As regards to issues relate to Carbon trading, well I understand the reason behind it but I don't actually agree with carbon trading. I think carbon trading is a cop out quite frankly. And I can believe that this has effected Redcar. I think plenty of companies have proven to beimmoral.

    When I said years I also said whatever it could be tomorrow that I change my mind it all depends on evidence and proof. Ok so you say its getting cooler, well if it is its already still quite warm. And its not now that the problem lies its in the future. What I need is not bloggers and columnist telling me but stories in the new scientist or some highly prominent scientist with a good reputation or minister from any country coming out and saying that they have been paid off. Until that happens, sorry I just cant believe it and I do believe there is climate change, no matter how you play it the world is getting warmer. I think what we should be doing is improving education to reduce births and spendingmoney on flood prevention & improving our food supplies etc.

    Also carbon dioxide is not just a green house gas, now lets say its not getting warmer. so Waht about this problem of growing acidity in the oceans see

  19. So you can't believe it because I say it. Not much answer to that either way though I note you cannot dispute anything factual I have put on my blog. In particular that means you cannot dispute that the party supported criminal genocidal war fought to turn Yugoslavia into something close to Hitler's intent & ultimately the massacres & the dissection of living people to steal their body organs. The party remains proud of this & if that is different from Nazism it is not a big difference.

    Booker is right about asbestos - check Professor Brignall's Numberwatch on the subject. Intelligent design, treated inteligently does not require the gentleman with a beard - the Crator could be Cthulhu or captain Kirk or anything else. I do not take such an explanation as proven but it is infinitely more credible than that we are part of a single accidental universe. I have gone into more detail on my blog.

    Glad we are roughly agreed about the cost of the War on Fire.

    Your conditions for changing your mind boil down to "if the government changes its line about catastrophic warming or presumably anything else either directly or through government approved scientists I will follow them - till then don't confuse me with mere facts. The mere fact that it is getting colder will not convince me it isn't getting warmer if Big brother says it is".

    Ocean absorbtion of CO2 is this weeks scare story. In fact that just means CO2 is absorbed by sea life faster & it gows better just like land plants. It is debunked here particularly regarding how this increases coral growth
    It seems to be only a few months since the eco-fascists were telling us that global warming must be fought because it was destroying coral reefs. Now you are being worried by the opposite.

  20. Neil, if anything I do enjoy your comments even thought I dont agree with them and you appear to often miss the point of my posts and comments. Anyway I will look into what you write. I have read your Hitler's intent lib dems nazi blog and it appears to be total poppy cock. I cant find proof on any side of the story appart from this where I quote "The clockwork sausage trophy for Wibble of the Week goes to a bizarre post by Neil Craig, who has decided to draw a parallel between a good number of Lib Dems bloggers and … er … Nazis (screenshot on right), in an article entitled “Lib Dem Bloggers who censor in the Nazi cause.”

    The overwhelming opinion of party bloggers in what has traditionally claimed to be a movement supporting liberal values, is that they cannot disagree on a factual basis that their leaders are genocidal Nazi war criminals & must resort to censorship.

    What did they do? They deleted a boilerplate comment. Hello storm, meet a teacup.

    If no legal response is forthcoming it tells us either a) That it is all true and no blogger metioned can refute it, or b) That they don’t take him seriously. I leave that for the history and the reader to decide."

  21. If you have checked the blog you know perfectly well that everything, from the FoI inquiey into the Dragodan Massacre (210 civilians murdered outside the British HQ in Dragodan) though the dissection of living people by our police (del Ponte's own statement) to genocide of 3870 Serb civilians as the only proven Srebrenica Massacre (the report Ashdown tried to burn) are all proven. Also all obviously censored by our media.

    The Britblog stuff, may amuse you, but it is hardly, as you assert, fact. Except for the conclusion, which I find amusing, that if no legal action ensues either nobody important in the party has any objection whatsoever to being known as genocidal, child raping, organlegging pro-Nazi war criminals (in which case none of them would censor it either, whcih you acknowledge has been done) or it is all true. Now that clearly is fact.

  22. Look, many scientists have been measuring the CO2 levels in the atmostphere for decades now, and examining long past CO2 levels from air bubbles trapped in ice cores. They have proven that they have gone up rapidly and continuously since the start of the industrial revolution and that they are still rising faster and faster. The only explanation is all the fossil fuel burning that us humans have been doing.
    There is no other logical reasonable practical sensible possible scientific or any other reason for this to happen.
    If you can just accept this as a indisputable fact we are halfway there.
    Now, we are left with whether or not CO2 causes a greenhouse effct in the atmostphere and therefore causes global warming.
    A simple scientific experiment that has been done proves that it does so quite easily.
    This experiment puts an infra-red camera (i.e a camera that seees heat not light) at one end of a cylinder that is initially full of air. A lighted candle is placed at the other end.
    To start with the image of the hot candle flame can be clearly seen. As C02 gas is bled into the cylinder the image of the candle flame fades and gradually disapears as the concentration of CO2 in the air increases. This proves that CO2 absorbs and reflects back the heat from the candle. The very same mechanism means that the CO2 in our atmostphere acts like blanket over the whole planet trapping heat and causing global warming. The more the concentration of CO2 the more the warming.
    There are several other many times more powerful greenhouse gases than CO2 at work that have the same effect - unfortunately! But, fortunately they are still at far lower concentrations in our atmostphere. However, one of these gases is methane, and if we thaw out too much of the permafrost in the far north due to too much global warming we are in grave danger of massively accelerating global warming in a thermal runaway situation due to the release of methane gas.
    This is one very real concern and it is genuinely a serious problem. There are several other thermal feedback effects that we have to worry about too.
    I do hope this convinces you of the need for action. In case it doesn't, may I also add that we humans are going to run out of oil very soon, natural gas soon after that, and coal not so very long after that. Since the population and consumption of energy keeps going up and these natural resources keep going down.
    These things simply wont last for ever. Our planet is finite and its reserves of these are finite too!
    We have simply got to find alternative energy sources - sooner rather than later - anyway! Since the only other options we have do not produce much CO2, if any - what exactly is the very good reason that people can possibly have for resisting the actions now being called for in the name of climate change to cut down on CO2 emissions by burning far less fossil fuels?

  23. Well it looks like we are 3/4 in agreement then. No sceptic disputes that CO2 has risen (look at the graph on Wattupwiththat to see the way the CO2 rise totally fails to correlate with rising temperature.

    Nobody disputes the laboratory effect of CO2 absorbing more infra red.

    What is in dispute is whether an increase of 1 part in 10,000 in the atmosphere of CO2 is enough to produce catastrophe. Or whether alternately it is a very minor effectof no importance compared to solar variability which does very closely match temperatures. That close matching is evidence of close matching & consequently that the warming effect of CO2 is unimportant. The crop growing power of increased CO2 is however, considerable. The fact that we have a long history of the world not melying down, even though temperatures have been significantly higher than now shows the positive feedback effects are far less than negative feedback effects.

    If you are sincere about about there being no good reason not to spend all this money on the off chance that science & human history is all wrong you will also be happy to spend the same on the off chance that i would like the money. I expect a postal order tomorrow for $800 million & so no - if you are being honest that is.