How to fool the world into thinking Global Warming exists….

*****Y**** ********** Y***Y***** *****Y**** ******Y***

********** *****Y**** ********** ********** **********

*****Y**** ********** ********** ****Y***** ********Y*

********** ********** ********** ********** **********

****Y***** *****Y**** ********** ********** **Y*******

**

The above shows a graphical portrayal of the 252 Yamal tree ring core data sets available to CRU. The Y indicate the 12 selected by CRU scientists to "prove" global warming.

The other 240 core samples, which did NOT support a global warming theory, were discarded.

They selected only bristlecone and foxtail pine tree ring data sets, ignoring everything else.

No wonder statisticians across the world are up in arms:

A team of statisticians led by Edward Wegman, chair of the National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, was assembled at the request of US Senators.

The team primarily focused on the statistical analysis used in the MBH paper, and also considered the personal and professional relationships between Mann et al. and other members of the paleoclimate community. Findings presented in this report (commonly known as the "Wegman Report") included the following:

• The CRU MBH98 and MBH99 reports were found to be "somewhat obscure and incomplete"
  
• Criticisms by McIntyre and McKitrick were found to be "valid and compelling."
  
• It is noted that there is no evidence that Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians.
  
• Overall, the committee believes that Mann's assessments, that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium, cannot be supported by his analysis
  
• Many of the same proxies are reused in most of the "independent studies" so these "cannot really claim to be independent verifications."
  

HOLY SHIT. You don't need a team of statisticians to know that if you select 12 out of 252 samples of data you are fudging results…..

THERE IS NO MAN MADE GOBAL WARMING

Dubai economic meltdown, Sukuk and the perfect storm that is about to hit.

``Nakheel is now standing on the brink of failure given the astonishing amount of cash Dubai would have to inject on it in order to see the enterprise survive,'' said Luis Costa, emerging-market debt strategist at Commerzbank AG in London. ``Events like this are a perfect storm.''

Long ago I lived in Dubai.

My first shock, upon arriving, was that it wasn't an "oil rich state" and in fact had very little oil. The only fields were the land based Margham Field and the offshore Fateh, Southwest Fateh and two smaller fields, Falah and Rashid. Even then, in the late 1970s, these fields were predicted to have only a short life.

To ensure a continuity of wealth, a massive reinvestment of the oil wealth was used to develop alternate economies. Massive docks were built at Jebel Ali, and Dubai Free Port was created. Aluminium smelters and skyscrapers were built. Based upon the Singapore model, Dubai became an economic hub in the region, and a tourist destination. Hotels, airlines, banks, sprang up.

Expats flocked to Dubai. I had landed at a disused RAF base with corrugated iron buildings. Now expats arrived at a world class airport.

Part of Dubai's attraction was its stability and location. In the Middle East, it retained western common sense. Women didn't need to have their heads covered. You could wear a bikini on the beach. You could drink in bars. The people of Dubai were remarkable accepting of behaviour that went against their religion and lifestyle.

I have always had a soft spot for Dubai, and worried about the place for two reasons:

1. It's a prime target for a terror attack. Sooner or later, some hot-headed lunatic will blow something up there. I'm very surprised it hasn't happened already.
   
2. Despite misconceptions (even in bankers and economists) Dubai is NOT an oil based economy. It is a TTB - Trade, Tourism and Banking economy, just like places like the UK. And it borrowed heavily to develop those economies. As such, it isn't immune to the global recession, as some people think.
   

Worry 1 hasn't happened yet, but overnight worry 2 came to fruition. Dubai owed over US$100 Billion at the beginning of this year, about US$400,000 per citizen. That is too high. Last night Dubai proposed delays or even defaults on the repayment of loans.

This isn't out of the blue. Leightons Construction had been owed money for some time. Last month Dubai raised a further US$2 Billion in Islamic loans. It has been a matter of "When", not "If".

"When" happened last night, with the default on the Nakheel $4 billion loan.

But wait – this isn't like a normal bank default. A lot of these loans are Islamic bonds, called Sukuk.

Islamic finance has five pillars:

• A ban on interest,
  
• A ban on speculation,
  
• A ban on haram (forbidden) investments, such as pork or gambling,
  
• The requirement of partnership or sharing of profit and loss
  
• The requirement of asset backing.
  

Note the fourth – loss. Lenders are partners in the eyes of Sharia law. Take profits when it is there, TAKE LOSS WHEN IT ISNT.

This doesn't look good AT ALL, and is going to make the fall of Lehmans look like child's play.

``Nakheel is now standing on the brink of failure given the astonishing amount of cash Dubai would have to inject on it in order to see the enterprise survive,'' said Luis Costa, emerging-market debt strategist at Commerzbank AG in London. ``Events like this are a perfect storm.''

Hang on for a bumpy ride.

The Great Climate Change Swindle

Really, someone should go to jail for this. For TEN YEARS Michael Mann faked a paper by selective use of data. This was used as one of the great pieces of "Proof" or "Evidence" of Global Climate Change.

• It was Rubbish.
  
• It was Codswallop.
  
• It was at best sham science, and at worst outright faking of data.
  

 

The story is This:

1: In 1998, a paper is published by Dr. Michael Mann, then at the University of Virginia, now a Penn State climatologist, and co-authors Bradley and Hughes. The paper is named: Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations. The paper becomes known as MBH98.

The conclusion of tree ring reconstruction of climate for the past 1,000 years is that we are now in the hottest period in modern history, ever.

See the graph http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/image/mann/manna_99.gif

Steve McIntyre, a Canadian mathematician in Toronto, suspects tree rings aren't telling a valid story with that giant uptick at the right side of the graph, implicating the 20th century as the "hottest period in 1000 years," which alarmists latch onto as proof of AGW. The graph is dubbed the "Hockey Stick" and becomes famous worldwide. Al Gore uses it in his movie An Inconvenient Truth in the famous "elevator scene."

2: Steve attempts to replicate Michael Mann's tree ring work in the paper MBH98, but is stymied by lack of data archiving. He sends dozens of letters over the years trying to get access to data but access is denied. McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, of the University of Guelph publish a paper in 2004 criticizing the work. A new website is formed in 2004 called Real Climate, by the people who put together the tree ring data and they denounce the scientific criticism:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/false-claims-by-mcintyre-and-mckitrick-regarding-the-mann-et-al-1998reconstruction/

3: Years go by.McIntyre is still stymied trying to get access to the original source data so that he can replicate the Mann 1998 conclusion. In 2008 Mann publishes another paper in bolstering his tree ring claim due to all of the controversy surrounding it. A Mann co-author and source of tree ring data (Professor Keith Briffa of the Hadley UK Climate Research Unit) used one of the tree ring data series (Yamal in Russia) in a paper published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 2008, which has a strict data archiving policy. Thanks to that policy, Steve McIntyre fought and won access to that data just last week.

4: Having the Yamal data in complete form, McIntyre replicates it, and discovers that one of Mann's co-authors, Briffa, had cherry picked 10 tree data sets out of a much larger set of trees sampled in Yamal.

5: When all of the tree ring data from Yamal is plotted, the famous hockey stick disappears. Not only does it disappear, but goes negative. The conclusion is inescapable. The tree ring data was hand-picked to get the desired result.

These are the relevant graphs from McIntyre showing what the newly available data demonstrates.

http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/rcs_chronologies1.gif

http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/rcs_merged.gif"

 

And now – THE INCREDIBLE PART:

In the hacked emails,

At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike ["Michael E. Mann"],

I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !

Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better

this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is

trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone.

 

THESE ASSHOLES HID THE DATA AND EVEN CONSIDERED DELETING IT…..

More proof Climate Scientists are idiots……

More bollocks from CRU. This time it's a programmers comment in a line of code, openly admitting that tree ring data after 1960 is discarded as this will be artificially adjusted:

 

; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions

; of growing season temperatures. Uses "corrected" MXD – but shouldn't usually

; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to

; the real temperatures

Why would they do that? Because the use of tree ring data isnt accurate, and people can remember 1960. So they add real data after 1960, and tree ring calculated data prior to 1960.

Perhaps they should realise something – if post 1960 tree ring data doesn't accurately portray real temperatures, then WHY THE FUCK SHOULD PRE 1960 TREE RING DATA DO SO?

WHAT A BUNCH OF IDIOTS………………….

Seven Great Climate Change lies….

Climate Change myth number 1: THE WORLD IS WARMING

RUBBISH!!

The world did warm between 1975 and 1998, but temperatures have dropped since. In fact, the fall in temperatures from just 2002 has already wiped out a quarter of the warming our planet experienced last century

A leading Climate Change Scientist Professor David Karoly, of Melbourne University has admitted "temperatures have dropped since both in surface temperatures and in atmospheric temperatures measured from satellites".

Check data from Britain's Hadley Centre, NASA's Aqua satellite and the US National Climatic Data Centre if you don't believe me.

Climate Change myth number 2: THE POLAR CAPS ARE MELTING

RUBBISH!

ANTARTICA: The British Antarctic Survey, working with NASA, have confirmed ice around Antarctica has grown 100,000 sq km each decade for the past 30 years. Long-term monitoring by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports the same thing. The southern hemisphere ice has been expanding for decades.

ARTIC: The Arctic ice cap shrank badly two summers ago after years of steady decline, but has since largely recovered. Satellite data from NASA's Marshall Space Flight Centre this week shows the Arctic hasn't had this much April ice for at least seven years. Norway's Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Centre says the ice is now within the standard deviation range for 1979 to 2007.

 

Climate Change myth number 3: CITIES ARE GETTING HOTTER

RUBBISH!

The alleged "record" temperature Melbourne set in January - 46.4 degrees - was in fact topped by the 47.2 degrees the city recorded in 1851. (See the Argus newspaper of February 8, 1851.). Victoria's highest temperature on record remains the 50.7 degrees that hit Mildura 103 years ago. South Australia's hottest day is still the 50.7 degrees Oodnadatta suffered 37 years ago. NSW's high is still the 50 degrees recorded 70 years ago.

None of the world's seven continents has set a record high temperature since 1974. Europe's high remains the 50 degrees measured in Spain 128 years ago.

 

Climate Change myth number 4: THE SEAS ARE GETTING HOTTER

RUBBISH!

The seas are getting colder. For five years, a network of 3175 automated bathythermographs has been deployed in the oceans by the Argo program, a collaboration between 50 agencies from 26 countries. They have shown a very slight but measurable cooling.

 

Climate Change myth number 5: THE SEAS ARE RISING

RUBBISH!

Although the seas have risen steadily and slowly for the past 10,000 years for the last 3 the rise has stopped according to the Jason-1 satellite mission monitored by the University of Colorado. Professor Nils-Axel Moerner, one of the world's most famous experts on sea levels, has studied the Maldives in particular and concluded there has been no net rise there for 1250 years.

 

Climate Change myth number 6: CYCLONES ARE GETTING WORSE

RUBBISH!

Ryan Maue of Florida State University recently measured the frequency, intensity and duration of all hurricanes and cyclones to compile an Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index. The energy index is at its lowest level for more than 30 years.

 

Climate Change myth number 7: OUR SNOW SEASONS ARE SHORTER

RUBBISH!

Look at the graphs 1954 to 2009…..

http://users.tpg.com.au/users/mpaine/snow.html

 

And for a good laugh, read the worst of the Global Warming papers – all these are rubbish……

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/04/more-worst-agw-papers/?cp=10

Global Warming Scientists – WHAT A PACK OF LIARS AND FOOLS.

I referred in an earlier post to my opinion of Climate Change scientists. It isn't very high.

We called it Global Warming, but couldnt prove it, so now its Climate Change!

 

Let me point out, before I get to my main point, why I don't believe them:

1. A major component UN climate group's 2001 Third Assessment Report was Michael Mann's famous hockey-stick-shaped historical temperature chart which "proved" that twentieth century warming was "unprecedented" in the last 2000 years. Mann refused to provide the data that his research was based upon. Finally, researchers found it to be based upon SELECTED tree ring data – he simply picked the evidence that suited his argument and ignored the rest. Mann was either an Idiot or a Liar. Take your pick.
   
2. The Climate Change lobby didn't learn from that piece of crap science. This year Keith Briffas "secret" tree-ring data was uncovered. There were over 252 cores available as evidence. Briffa used only 12 cores to prove a recent temperature spike, and ignored the rest, which didn't prove his theory. Briffa is either an Idiot or a Liar. Take your pick.
   
3. When asked to produce its data evidence to support its findings, Britain's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) this group of Climate Scientists first refused, and then when handed legal requirements claimed the data had been "lost". The CRU are either Incompetent or Liars. Take your pick.
   
4. The original text of the IPCC's 1995 Second Assessment Report emphasized that no studies had found clear evidence that observed climate changes could be attributed to greenhouse gases or other manmade causes. This was modified (without the authors' and reviewers' knowledge or approval) by Dr. Ben Santer and his colleagues to say "a discernable human influence" on Earth's climate – which the Report DIDN'T say. Sorry Santer, either you are a Liar or a Fraud. You take your pick mate.
   

All of this (and a lot more of the same) doesn't look good. Science isn't about selecting evidence to prove your point. Its about a holistic examination of the body of evidence. If you don't do that you are practicing Sham Science.

But the latest revelation take the biscuit. Someone hacked into the Climate Research Unit email server. The results are astonishing. In fact more than astonishing. They provide reasonable evidence for criminal investigations – these idiots were paid by taxpayers in good faith. What this did was far from it:

One, from Phil Jones, openly states "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

WHAT THE FUCK???? I SAY AGAIN. WHAT THE FUCK???????

HIDE THE DECLINE???????? Why in Gods name do they need to "HIDE" anything?

Another email from Keith Trenberth admits "The fact that we cannot account for the lack of global warming at the moment and it's a travesty that can't." later in the email he says "the data are surely wrong".

WHAT THE FUCK???? THE DATA MUST BE WRONG?????

I don't have to ask the questions here:

– Trenberth you are an IDIOT. If the data doesn't support your theory – YOU FUCKNIG THEORY IS WRONG!!!! Dear God – you must be the most stupid man in England not to see this .

• Jones – you are a LIAR. You changed data to suit your theory. You lied about the evidence.
  

  
   

(if either of you want to sue me go ahead, lets see you defend this reprehensible practice in court…)

 

There is a lot more of this to come out yet. And Im not happy.

 

 

 

 

Hoaxes, Attacks, Agendas and Anoraks. The Dangerous and Misleading World of Wikipedia.

The internet is a strange world. I can publish anything I want, and it can be read by anyone.

I may be incorrect or deliberately misleading in my post. The reader my recognise this, or may take my comment at face value.

Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia, attempts to control what is published. It relies upon Subject Matter Experts to validate entries. This takes time, relies upon volunteers, and also relies upon the SME noticing the errors or misleading entries.

The entries that need cleaning up fall into the categories of:

HOAXES

Some entries are plain harmless hoaxes.

Alan Mcilwraith was a harmless but stupid young man who created his own Wiki entry with an impeccable military background and a Knighthood. The entry was up for about a month, before SME's spotted the errors and removed it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Mcilwraith

Articles like this pop up from time to time. More frequently someone adds or changes their own records slightly. A Harvard MBA here, Vietnam service there.

ATTACKS:

Other entries are deliberate attacks on people.

John Seigenthaler, a respected retired journalist, was accused in a Wiki entry of being suspected of involvement in both Kennedy assassinations, and of living in Russia during the Cold War. Neither were true. Seigenthaler has never managed to trace the person who made the entry.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm

The problem is discussed in detail on Wikipedia itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia

AGENDAS:

Other entries attempt to push a political viewpoint. Take a look at Tamil Tigers, Northern Ireland, Palestine, Gaza, and any other regional dispute to see the constant bitching.

ANORAKS:

There is a fourth problem area. The "Anorak Expert".

An "anorak" is a British derogatory term meaning "a person obsessively interested in a thing or topic that doesn't seem to warrant such attention". They are usually teenagers, who play computer games and live in a fantasy world. They differ from the SMEs by reading about a subject rather than practicing it. They talk incessantly about minor technicalities. They can tell you not only the difference between various audio compression algorithms, they can also tell you in minute detail the audio losses decibel by decibel across the spectrum. The fact that they couldn't recognise an algorithm if it landed on their house room doesn't matter to them .The ability to recall endless trivia and recite it make them an "Expert"

Wikipedia is bloated with entries from Anorak Experts. I found one by chance today. Someone had made an entry under "Counter-sniper tactics". Two things gave the game away:

Firstly, who the fuck cares about counter sniper tactics. Anyone in the Military would have the appropriate training handbook available, or wouldn't care. Only an Anorak would give a shit about such a topic.

Secondly, the entire article was rubbish. I suspect it came straight from a computer game handbook . It certainly doesn't fit any military doctrine. I suspect the writer took the whole thing out of "Enemy at the Gates" itself based upon a FICTIONAL account of the Battle of Stalingrad. Before anyone who has seen the movie makes a comment, the historian Antony Beevor has stated in his book Stalingrad that the account of the sniper dual was pure fiction.

For technical reasons, sniper to sniper engagement is a likely as a blind man hitting thee successive holes in one.

And yet sniper to sniper engagement is stated on Wikipedia to be "generally the most effective counter-sniper tool".

UTTER AND TOTAL BOLLOX.

Sooner or later Wiki is going to have to clean up its act. It is misleading and dangerous to allow such posts to exist.