ClimateGate emails and computer programs were taken from a main server at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. It is not known if this was a theft or the actions of a whistleblower, disgusted with what the lead scientists at CRU were doing.

ClimateGate exposed the cabal of 20 – 30 scientists (not just at CRU) that peer reviewed each others papers, strong-armed scientific journals to only print their views, and then sat on the IPCC panels as authors judging which published studies go into the IPCC final reports. This is why they always keep shouting “peer reviewed studies, peer reviewed studies, peer reviewed studies”. They owned the peer review process.

ClimateGate exposed that this small group has been adding positive corrections to the raw global temperature data, inflating the amount of published temperature rise over the last 50 years. Both CRU in the UK and NASA-GISS in the US add these biases. At CRU, the programmers did not even know what and why some corrections were added every month. Only since satellite monitoring for comparison have the amounts of biasing leveled off.

ClimateGate exposed the leaders of this cabal instructing each other to delete emails, data files, and data analysis programs ahead of already filed Freedom Of Information Act requests for raw data and computer codes, clearly a crime.

ClimateGate exposed the “trick” about the Hockey stick figure and other studies that performed proxy construction of past temperatures. After all, reconstruction of the last 1,000 years of climate is the first step in predicting the future with super computer programs as explained below:

Everything about all 21 super computer programs used by the IPCC to determine future global warming rely on best-determined past sensitivities to solar and volcanic effects (climate forcings) from the proxy temperature record.

1. The elimination of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age (the handle of the hockey stick) was necessary so that past solar effects could be minimized, thereby allowing almost all of the warming in the last 75 years to be blamed on Greenhouse Gasses. Raw data (like tree-ring thickness, radioisotope of mud layers in a lake bottom, ice core analyses, etc.) are used as a proxy for reconstruction of the temperature record for 1000 AD to 1960 AD. To ensure desired results, statistical manipulation of the raw data and selecting only supporting data, cherry-picking, was suspected and later proved.

2. The slope of long-term 10-year running average global temperature using thermometers from 1900 to present (the blade of the hockey stick) was maximized with the sloppy gridding code, Urban Heat Island effects, hiding the declines, and even fabricating data (documented in the leaked source code comments revealed with ClimateGate). This ensured that the Greenhouse Gas effect coefficient in all 21 of the super computers was maximized, and that maximizes the temperature result at year 2100 based on Greenhouse Gas increases. This thermometer data was used to replace the tree ring-divergence after 1960 and plot this over the climate history data of (1) above giving the false impression that the reconstructed 1000 AD to 1960 AD results are more accurate than they are.

3. Because tuning of the super computer programs uses back casting, the computer outputs could always replicate the 20th Century (by design); therefore it was assumed that the models had almost everything in them. Because of (1) and (2) above, nearly all climate change predicted by the models was due to CO2 and positive feedbacks and hardly any of the climate change was for other reasons like solar, understood or not.

4. Over the years, when better numbers for volcanic effects, black carbon, aerosols, land use, ocean and atmospheric multi-decadal cycles, etc. became available, it appears that CRU made revisions to refit the back cast, but could hardly understand what the code was doing due to previous correction factor fudging and outright fabricating, as documented in the released code as part of ClimateGate.

5. After the IPCC averages the 21 super computer outputs of future projected warming (anywhere from 2-degrees to 7-degrees, not very precise), that output is used to predict all manner of catastrophes. (Fires, floods, droughts, blizzards, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, insects, extinctions, diseases, civil wars, cats & dogs sleeping together, etc.)

So shut-up or be called a denier,
live the way we tell you to live,
pay more for everything, and
just send money for my research on the effects of global climate change on horseshoe crabs (which have been around for about 440 million years through all possible temperature ranges).

I hope that this makes the ClimateGate controversy easier to understand.

Winston wondered at the adjustment to the data. At this point, no one even knows if the data, prior to his adjustments, was raw data or already adjusted one or more times previously.

It didn’t matter. All Winston was sure of is that one of the lead climatologists needed more slope to match his computer model outputs. He punched out the new Fortran cards and then dropped the old cards into the Memory Hole where they were burned.

“There!” Winston exclaimed to himself. “Now the temperature data record is correct again; all is double-plus good.”

Anyways the Brits have shown that cosmic rays affect tree ring growth more than temp or rain:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsi...

“The intensity of cosmic rays also correlates better with the changes in tree growth than any other climatological factor, such as varying levels of temperature or precipitation over the years.”

Tree-o-mometer doesn't work.

I read a letter-to-the-editor in my local newspaper, the Dallas Morning News. In it the author explains his background. He was an engineer with Texas Instruments. His research group studied CO2 as a possbile conductor for computer applications. His group found that CO2 had a very limited ability to retain heat. The heat retention was at it's maximum at around 150ppm. If I recall correctly, that number did not increase until over 2,500 ppm. The earth does not have enough carbon to reach those atmospheric CO2 levels. In other words, CO2 has produced all the warming that it will ever produce.
I found that little letter to be quite informative since his research was for commercial and not political gain.

Google ITER and then google the z axis accelerator. ITER stands for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. The pilot plant is being built in France. The project was started ten years ago and thanks to massive international political corruption the forty hectare site has been recently cleared. I think that I could clear a forty hectare forest in ten years with a pocket knife.

In a nutshell, ITER has the potential to produce more power than the human race consumes at present with helium gas being the major biproduct.

Then there's the pebble bed reactor design, the pilot plant is being built in South Africa. An air cooled run-away proof fission reactor that doesn't require a tenth of the safety infrastructure that a “conventional” water cooled reactor requires.

By the bye, has anyone calculated the “peak” in uranium?

Speaking off which, there's a bunch of folks of late calling the validity of the 1947 “Peak Oil Theory.” Peak oil is the idea that we're running out of oil. Problem is we keep finding more and the other problem is that pumped out fields for some reason or another have some oil in them again. Once again, google the topic for more information.

Lastly, the idea of carbon sequestration has a couple potential show stopping bugs. The really bad one is the concept of using oil wells as a storage sump for waste CO2 gas from fossile fuel power plants. The potential problem is this, oil is pumped out of the ground. Something takes the place of the oil or the ground above the oil deposit sinks. Now, based on the assumption that the folks pumping out the oil aren't pumping something into the ground to take the place of the oil then where is the gas taking the place of the oil coming from? And if you pump a couple thousand pound per square inch CO2 into the ground, how do you keep it from leaking out? If you happen to live on the land with a CO2 sump under it and the CO2 leaks out what's to stop the stuff from suffocating you and your family?

Stuff like that.

For twenty years I believed in man-made global warming theory, but the evidence has changed. During that period we’ve had ten years of warming then ten years of little or no warming. I blame my confusion on the United Nations for getting ahead of their facts. When they claimed CO2 drives global warming, I think they were more concerned about politics and funding than science. One only needs to look at their track record: UN forecasts do not fit what actually happened.

- Robert Moen, http://www.energyplanUSA.com

The data are in the faces of Man-Made Climate Change supporters and they still refuse to acknowledge the evidence.

These same scientists threatened my job with the US Geological Survey when trying to publish a study showing with higher confidence that global temperature changes were natural and caused solely by Earth's physical processes. Additionally, these same scientists would not discuss or refute the science and facts presented. Instead, they took two days to personally insult and attack me.

I always knew that when man-made global climate change was shown as insignificant that people would lose faith, note the word “FAITH”, in science. But this event and exposure is by far worse for the science community; but “Truth is the daughter of Time (Francis Bacon)”.

Several USGS scientists got fired for the same thing when discussing data manipulation for models developed for the Nevada Nuclear Test Site. But no outcry and defense for those scientists?

IF you see no problem with this and not wondering if the public has been misled by these scientists, then you are not scientists, you're in denial, and you stand for no moral principles.

On 25 November 2009 at 12:15 PM, I tried to post comments on RealClimate.org concerning this matter. That website refused the posts because they know me; another attempt to silence objective parties and since they were the ones that threatened my job…..

Now, Al Gore PUBLICLY states Mantle temperatures are MILLIONS of DEGREES. The man doesn't have the morality, decency, and/or courage to publicly admit he was WRONG. SO WHY SHOULD these scientists admit they are wrong? They can't, because if they do, the gig is up.

The phenomenon I discuss in my research has been studied for nearly 50 years and accepted as highly plausible by the Royal Society (I have the Publication) but the process and connection were unexplainable; the only drawback of all Magnetic Intensity and Ambient Temperature studies, in their WORDS, up till now. We explained the Process in our paper along with the data analysis. Unfortunately, we used the Hadley Global Temperature Datasets. The data used were yearly averages, which was well explained both in the original paper and the 2008 AGU presentation. Just didn't see any RealClimate people at the presentation. But they knew about it. I informed them
The following is what I perceived as personal intimidation and a threat to call my USGS supervisor for doing this study. The only reason someone uses words like “Does your boss know what your doing” in the context of this event is a threat to get you FIRED if you don't cease and desists. Now if the study and theory were not plausible and a potential explanation of global temperature variability, then why would RealClimate.org do what they did in their posts? Not very professional for PhDs. Additionally, there are many other areas on that website where conversations took place.
QUOTE
“264
John Mashey says:
30 June 2007 at 1:04 AM
re: #261: Chuck: you can stop worrying. Tindall has been at USGS for while,……………………………………..
Mr. Moran, if you’re still watching:
I have read USGS 370.735.5 and I hope you (and James Tindall) have.
Do managers SAF and LE HB know about this? Any constructive comments?”
UNQUOTE
From: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/200…