Global warming a scam? Hacked Hadley data might suggest so.

DanRoM said:
Thanks Spectre, I'll read it tonight after work...
Click to expand...

Another nugget from my info files - a theory that fit the observed data better than the "official party line" from the anthropocentric global warmists, and which was summarily smacked down by NASA's AGW scammers (who are among those implicated in the email leak):

http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhouse+Equations+Totally+Wrong/article10973.htm

Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations "Totally Wrong"
Michael Asher
March 6, 2008 11:02 AM

A simplified view of the new equations governing the greenhouse effect
New derivation of equations governing the greenhouse effect reveals "runaway warming" impossible

Mikl?s Z?goni isn't just a physicist and environmental researcher. He is also a global warming activist and Hungary's most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. Or was.

That was until he learned the details of a new theory of the greenhouse effect, one that not only gave far more accurate climate predictions here on Earth, but Mars too. The theory was developed by another Hungarian scientist, Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA's Langley Research Center.

After studying it, Z?goni stopped calling global warming a crisis, and has instead focused on presenting the new theory to other climatologists. The data fit extremely well. "I fell in love," he stated at the International Climate Change Conference this week.

"Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations," Miskolczi states. Just as the theory of relativity sets an upper limit on velocity, his theory sets an upper limit on the greenhouse effect, a limit which prevents it from warming the Earth more than a certain amount.

How did modern researchers make such a mistake? They relied upon equations derived over 80 years ago, equations which left off one term from the final solution.

Miskolczi's story reads like a book. Looking at a series of differential equations for the greenhouse effect, he noticed the solution -- originally done in 1922 by Arthur Milne, but still used by climate researchers today -- ignored boundary conditions by assuming an "infinitely thick" atmosphere. Similar assumptions are common when solving differential equations; they simplify the calculations and often result in a result that still very closely matches reality. But not always.

So Miskolczi re-derived the solution, this time using the proper boundary conditions for an atmosphere that is not infinite. His result included a new term, which acts as a negative feedback to counter the positive forcing. At low levels, the new term means a small difference ... but as greenhouse gases rise, the negative feedback predominates, forcing values back down.

NASA refused to release the results. Miskolczi believes their motivation is simple. "Money", he tells DailyTech. Research that contradicts the view of an impending crisis jeopardizes funding, not only for his own atmosphere-monitoring project, but all climate-change research. Currently, funding for climate research tops $5 billion per year.

Miskolczi resigned in protest, stating in his resignation letter, "Unfortunately my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate. My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results."

His theory was eventually published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in his home country of Hungary.

The conclusions are supported by research published in the Journal of Geophysical Research last year from Steven Schwartz of Brookhaven National Labs, who gave statistical evidence that the Earth's response to carbon dioxide was grossly overstated. It also helps to explain why current global climate models continually predict more warming than actually measured.

The equations also answer thorny problems raised by current theory, which doesn't explain why "runaway" greenhouse warming hasn't happened in the Earth's past. The new theory predicts that greenhouse gas increases should result in small, but very rapid temperature spikes, followed by much longer, slower periods of cooling -- exactly what the paleoclimatic record demonstrates.

However, not everyone is convinced. Dr. Stephen Garner, with the NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL), says such negative feedback effects are "not very plausible". Reto Ruedy of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies says greenhouse theory is "200 year old science" and doubts the possibility of dramatic changes to the basic theory.

Miskowlczi has used his theory to model not only Earth, but the Martian atmosphere as well, showing what he claims is an extremely good fit with observational results. For now, the data for Venus is too limited for similar analysis, but Miskolczi hopes it will one day be possible.
Click to expand...

NASA (and the AGW fanatics) lied, the world economy/your tax dollars/people's jobs died!
 
Last edited:
Reto Ruedy of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies says greenhouse theory is "200 year old science" and doubts the possibility of dramatic changes to the basic theory.
Click to expand...

WHAAAAT?!

200 years ago science barely existed... at least compared to what it is now.
 
doesnt suprise me, i've heard alsorts about this

for me, i dont think we can deny the climate is changing.... and i suspect that while its supposed to change naturally, i thing we've played a relatively small hand in it... making it just that little more severe in places. but there are people out there who wanna cash in on this and they'll tell you without flinching that its all our fault and everything would be rosy if we didnt exist.

basically they've amplified a problem into an all out catastrophe and they've done it by being alarmist and by bending the truth.


theres idiots on both sides.... some claiming nothing is happenening at all, others running around screaming about the end of time..... theres people being dishonest about it, like these guys, but it doesnt mean theyre all like that.
 
Last edited:
otispunkmeyer said:
doesnt suprise me, i've heard alsorts about this

for me, i dont think we can deny the climate is changing.... and i suspect that while its supposed to change naturally, i thing we've played a relatively small hand in it... making it just that little more severe in places. but there are people out there who wanna cash in on this and they'll tell you without flinching that its all our fault and everything would be rosy if we didnt exist.

basically they've amplified a problem into an all out catastrophe and they've done it by being alarmist and by bending the truth.


theres idiots on both sides.... some claiming nothing is happenening at all, others running around screaming about the end of time..... theres people being dishonest about it, like these guys, but it doesnt mean theyre all like that.
Click to expand...

While global 'climate change' is happening, we've pretty much had no significant effect on it whatsoever.

Thebigtemperaturepicture.png


Notice the predicted temperature path from what these liars said versus reality. Also, notice that the frequency between midpoints is about 11 years... what do we know that peaks and drops in approximate 11 year cycles... oh, wait, that would be THE SUN. You know, big yellow fusion reaction thing in the sky, warms entire planets at light-hour distances?


Have you guys read this thing? It's incredible the depths to which they stooped and the data they just plain fabricated.

More fun stuff that's coming out of the email investigations:

I am seriously worried that our flagship gridded data product is produced by Delaunay triangulation - apparently linear as well. As far as I can see, this renders the station counts totally meaningless. It also means that we cannot say exactly how the gridded data is arrived at from a statistical perspective - since we're using an off-the-shelf product that isn't documented sufficiently to say that. Why this wasn't coded up in Fortran I don't know - time pressures perhaps? Was too much effort expended on homogenisation, that there wasn't enough time to write a gridding procedure? Of course, it's too late for me to fix it too. Meh.
Click to expand...

I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that's the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight... So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!
Click to expand...

Source: CBS News

The best part is the latest press release from the CRU is fucking HILARIOUS in how much double-speak, obfuscation and redirection they've embedded in it. Lots of "don't look behind the curtain" and "the data doesn't support it but you must BELIEVE!"
 
Last edited:
Good on CBS for covering it. ABC just ran another global warming scare story tonight... no doubt in reaction to the email leak.
 
I read the link BCS supplies and omg those guys are boned. Basically making up data from completely disorganized data sources using programs they have little idea about. In addition to admittig they have zero clue about what's going on and admittig to just glossing over errors and producing data with very slack tolerances.

And this is info that policy is made on and huge sums invested on
 
otispunkmeyer said:
I read the link BCS supplies and omg those guys are boned. Basically making up data from completely disorganized data sources using programs they have little idea about. In addition to admittig they have zero clue about what's going on and admittig to just glossing over errors and producing data with very slack tolerances.

And this is info that policy is made on and huge sums invested on
Click to expand...

I've been saying that the whole thing is a scam for literally years.

Latest news on the subject is that the BBC (!) has discovered that hundreds of millions of pounds promised to developing countries to help them tackle climate change cannot be accounted for. Video report at link; the BBC is obviously pro-AGW (as you can easily tell from the report), but it is revealing that nobody knows where the millions and millions of pounds have disappeared to (gee, anyone really surprised?) - and that they're asking for billions more, even without knowing where the last 250 million (or 160 million, depending on who you ask) went.
 
Last edited:
One of the files with 15004 lines of text and data, which is attributed to the CRU leak and is located under FOIA/documents in the archive linked in the original post. Very boring, but worth taking a look. From someone who bothered to quote a few paragraphs:

These are very promising. The vast majority in both cases are within 0.5 degrees of the published data. However, there are still plenty of values more than a degree out.
Click to expand...

As for their (in)competence:

Conversion was hampered by the discovery that some stations have a mix of % and % x10 values! So more mods to sp2cldp_m.for. Then conversion, producing cldfromspc.94000312221624.dtb. Copied the .dts file across
as is, not sure what it does unfortunately (or can't remember!).
Click to expand...

Examined the program that converts sun % to cloud oktas. It is
complicated! Have inserted a line to multiple the result by 12.5 (the result is in oktas*10 and ranges from 0 to 80, so the new result will range from 0 to 1000).
Click to expand...

Well, dtr2cld is not the world's most complicated program. Wheras cloudreg is, and I immediately found a mistake! Scanning forward to 1951 was done with a loop that, for
completely unfathomable reasons, didn't include months! So we read 50 grids instead of 600!!! That may have had something to do with it. I also noticed, as I was correcting THAT, that I reopened the DTR and CLD data files when I should have been opening the bloody station files!! I can only assume that I was being interrupted continually when I was writing this thing. Running with those bits fixed improved matters somewhat, though now there's a problem in that one 5-degree band (10S to 5S) has no stations! This will be due to low station counts in that region, plus removal of duplicate values.
Click to expand...
 
After skimming this thread I'm surprised it has actually gotten back on topic.

Anyway my two cents:
There certainly would be a great benefit in predicting long term weather patterns. However, I don't care much either way if climate change is our fault or not. I think it is more important to minimize our impact on the environment regardless. Even if humans have haven't had any significant impact on the planet's long term climate I still, in general, support plans to reduce pollution and shift to alternate, renewable sources of energy.

I have no respect for scientists who knowingly falsify results.
 
^ And your stance is great!...as long as any Government does not use that premise to restrict freedoms or overly tax on what might now be corrupted science. Put the responsibility into the hands of the people, let them decide on an individual basis; if consumers want electric cars, then the car companies will produce them.

Never turn to a Government to solve problems, as they will always find a way to bungle it, and then claim no responsibility for their errant actions.

EVERY

SINGLE

FUCKING

TIME!
 
Jay - I do not remember ever voting for millions of intrusive Video cameras, Huge tax on fuel, recycling or we take your sorry hide to prison myself.

Democracy has failed in this respect, these cowboys need to produce the correct goods and then the solutions not just 'lets all live in teepees'.
 
Last edited:
jayhawk said:
^ And your stance is great!...as long as any Government does not use that premise to restrict freedoms or overly tax on what might now be corrupted science. Put the responsibility into the hands of the people, let them decide on an individual basis; if consumers want electric cars, then the car companies will produce them.

Never turn to a Government to solve problems, as they will always find a way to bungle it, and then claim no responsibility for their errant actions.
Click to expand...

Agreed. In general I support those things but that doesn't mean I'll support any and every law because the gov claims it will help the environment.

I do think the government has to get involved to some extent though. When it comes to setting pollution limits, waste and recycling programs they pretty much have to. Unfortunately, it apparently isn't as simple as if consumers want electric cars then companies will produce them. The documentary 'Who Killed the Electric Car' showed pretty clearly that some people were willing to buy GM's EV1 in the 90s. Yet GM decided to literally crush working EV1s instead of selling them to willing buyers.
 
yeeha said:
Agreed. In general I support those things but that doesn't mean I'll support any and every law because the gov claims it will help the environment.

I do think the government has to get involved to some extent though. When it comes to setting pollution limits, waste and recycling programs they pretty much have to. Unfortunately, it apparently isn't as simple as if consumers want electric cars then companies will produce them. The documentary 'Who Killed the Electric Car' showed pretty clearly that some people were willing to buy GM's EV1 in the 90s. Yet GM decided to literally crush working EV1s instead of selling them to willing buyers.
Click to expand...

Actually, while the EV1 may have been entirely purposed to prove that the idiot California ZEV regulations were stupid, they did have some points with regards to having to crush the cars.

For starters, Federal laws (specifically, IIRC, the Magnusson-Moss Act) requires car manufacturers to stock parts for any car they sell for at least 7 years. No way to get a waiver on that, and EV1 parts were getting scarce even when they were still leasing them. Behold the Feds' impetus to destroy the cars.

Second, GM had enormous legal exposure on the EV1. Under California law, waiver or not, GM could be sued if someone crashed an EV1 into someone or something and caused 'extraordinary damage' - so the fact that potential owners were saying they'd sign waivers releasing GM from any responsibility meant zip. Same thing for the very large charging stations that the EV1 required - if one of those burned down someone's house, you can bet GM would be on the hook for it, release or no release. So California's insane litigiousness contributed.

Third, guess what California law said that GM was going to be responsible for when it came time to be replaced? Yup, the big battery packs. So even though GM wasn't going to be paid for it, it would still have to pay to have the packs recycled or disposed of and a tax for that purpose would have to be paid to the state. This would be California's econazis contributing.

"Who Killed The Electric Car" was less a documentary and more a propaganda piece. They did have some good points, but what they failed to mention or 'accidentally left out' was more interesting than what was in it. Kind of like Al Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," which as we can all tell from this thread, turned out to be a propaganda piece based on no real evidence with a foundation of lies instead.
 
Last edited:
The bias in the 'Who Killed the Electric Car' film wasn't lost on me. I've heard the reasons for why they refused to sell the car before. I understand that from GM's cost/benefit point of view it just wasn't worth the risk. Still makes me wonder though how so much research and development went into it only to get completely killed despite some willing buyers for cars that already existed.

I do hope Tesla Motors succeeds but it is still a couple years until they release a car for less than 100,000. Even if all goes well it would probably be at least another decade (pure guess here) before they can make something the average person would and could buy.

I actually haven't seen an Inconvenient Truth but I get the gist of it. As I mentioned earlier I think the important question is what can we do from now on to minimize our impact and lessen our need for finite resources. We know we are polluting our immediate surroundings and we know fossil fuels won't last forever. Even assuming climate change is not our fault we will still be better off in the long run if we work to solve those problems now.
 
yeeha said:
The bias in the 'Who Killed the Electric Car' film wasn't lost on me. I've heard the reasons for why they refused to sell the car before. I understand that from GM's cost/benefit point of view it just wasn't worth the risk. Still makes me wonder though how so much research and development went into it only to get completely killed despite some willing buyers for cars that already existed.
Click to expand...

Wikipedia has a little entry down the EV1 page that is notable and exposes the stupidity of GM.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1#EV1_series_hybrid

Notice the tech they actually developed in the EV1... then completely threw out the window and have had to redevelop for the Volt.
 
We had this discussion in another thread somewhere, how we will all need half inch copper wiring and nuclear powerplants (that's "nukular powerpants" for Bush admirers) in our gardens for everyone to be able to recharge their cars overnight (especially considering recent developments in high-current Li-Ion battery charging technology).

Someone should really sit down and do the math, it's very simple (we need some population stats for that).
 
Yeah I thought about that recently as well. At the end of the work day there will be a gigantic spike in power consumption and I don't see how renewable energy could possibly adjust to that.
 
DarkReaper said:
Yeah I thought about that recently as well. At the end of the work day there will be a gigantic spike in power consumption and I don't see how renewable energy could possibly adjust to that.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the excess energy, because I think engineers are working on a solution for that, some kind of underground batteries (or what ever).
personally I don't believe in human made climate change but, there are some positive aspect of renewable energy. demand for oil will go down, making it cheaper to run a car, heating and in some cases electricity will get cheaper as well; And since my country is the biggest exporter of wind-power, I'll get very rich :mrgreen:. speaking of which, have you noticed that the majority of Global warming supporters are people benefiting from it...;)
 
as mind blowing as this all is.... its just not going to make it into the public view. mainstream media like the BBC simply wont report it. they'll just act like it never happened and hope to god it goes away.

from where i sit... its virtually pointless arguing. you have 2 sides.... those who push AGW as undisputed fact and those who say its a scam. both have biased opinions and vested interests...therefore, in my eyes, both are as bad as each other. if the pro AGW's can fabricate data to fit their claim, theres nothing to say the Anti-AGW's arent doing the same. their views are as worthless as each others.

in my view its best to just get on with your lives because i dont think any amount of worrying will change the outcome of this. the pro-AGW's have the money, the power and the politics on their side, and it doesnt matter how wrong they are....they'll win.

i approach it like this....

im all for being more efficient and careful with our resources... (or should i say wallet?). but not because some thundercunt is cramming enviro-hippy-bollocks down my neck. no, for me, thats not an incentive.

fossil fuels, will run out one day.... they will, or at the very least they'll be too expensive to be worth extracting. so from that, its only logical to suggest that we need to have a new infrastructure in place....one that doesn't involve fossil fuels.

secondly, the incentive... money. i (try to) hyper mile my car, i turn lights off when i leave the room, i wash clothes in my washing machine at 15 degrees, i clean dishes by hand, i dont get baths i have quick showers, i rarely use the heating (because our flat is very well insulated), i turn my computers and tellys off at the wall, etc etc and so on and so forth....

i dont do all this stuff out of care for the trees... i do all this because im a broke, recently ex-student and these things save me money. thats the incentive right there. money in the bank.

the greenies shouldn't be forcing this shit down our throats 24/7, they shouldnt be trying to guilt people, the media shouldn't be trying to frighten people and the government should be using the carrot (tax breaks) rather than the stick (taxes). people dont like that stuff, and just like motivational theories at work....its not as effective as someone doing it off their own backs because it gives them great satisfaction.

if it was advertised as ways to save ??? more people would do it, and just by proxy.... they'd be cutting down on energy and resource use without even thinking.

Im also all for green power.... (though i realize the cost/performance of coal, and its reliability is hard to ignore. it does make it a perfect power source for hard up countries. but people, including the company i work at are working to make coal cleaner.... we're just beginning tests on a CO2 scrubber that can remove nearly all the CO2. its expensive tho and not ready for prime time for a few years.)

so i realise we still need to have these fossil powered facilities....we should of been building nuclear in the 70's its just, past greenies made sure that didnt happen because of another ill thought out fad belief that they imposed on everyone by shouting. so we have little choice but to rely on fossil.

Wind, tidal, geothermal, wave, solar..... they are just not reliable enough or mature enough. its just not sensible to think that those methods will ever fulfil our needs.

wind - well u need the wind to blow, and it does...sometimes. also, high maintainance...these things dont last anywhere near as long as a big steam turbine in a power plant. whats more the amount of CO2 produced, just to make the concrete anchor base for these things is huge. it would take years of 24/7 full tilt operation before it broke even

tidal - ok tidal turbines arent too bad, the tide is at least predictable and dependable.... but it only flows a couple of times a day

wave- again u need wind.... its not always windy, and i imagine the generating method is quite inefficient or produces little energy

solar - can be good if its really sunny.... focus light on to a stirling engine, or boiler and u can make some good power. but you know, places like the UK, its not going to work. even in summer!

hydro - well u need a big river and a flood plain to flood. hydro is very very good though if u have the place to build it

geothermal - again u need to be in specific areas where u can get at the heat by drilling down, and the heat transfer through rocks is very slow so you often find that geothermal equipment removes the heat quicker than it can permeate the rocks.

the best answer is nuclear power.

i find it bemusing that people dont trust engineers to build safe nuclear reactors. we should be using nuclear.... its cleaner and it would be ultimately cheaper in the long run... and if/when fusion arrives... we'll be sorted.

thing is, i reckon most intelligent people will already know all this, and think just like i do.... an rather than shout about it and being all petty by making shit up to shout down the opposition (an justify their years in academia no doubt)...theyre just keeping schtum and getting on with it.

i mean i dont go round forcing my opinions and energy saving tips on people... no i just get on and do it, like all the sensible people. proper engineers and scientists...they went out an got jobs, not like the alarmist failures (on both sides) that are trying to force their will on everyone else.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top