Global cooling... Better hurry N Pass Cap N TAX...

 

Talk about a smoking gun.

 

Here is the link to them if you missed it.

 

 

 

 

Look at this email.

 

 

 

yeah, someone wrote something that makes them look bad, so what do they do?...

 

"Dear folks,

You may be interesting in this snippet of information about
Pat Michaels. Perhaps the University of Wisconsin ought to
open up a public comment period to decide whether Pat Michaels,
PhD needs re-assessing?"

 

 

yup, they want to pull his PhD! All because they disagree with his science. That children is called hardball, in most industries that is also called being blacklisted!

 

Nice!

 

 

I waited to see if one of you guys would post about it...

 

I got tired of waiting.

 

 

 

Gotta make the data say what you "need" it to say...

 

 

 

"The hourly data from the Weather

Generator have discontinuities at each

midnight join. The e.g. temperature

jumps, may be as high as 9�C. "

 

 

 

 

and more...

 

"Could the Weather Generator be altered

to produce more realistic hourly data

by fitting from Tmax to Tmin the

following day, please?"

 

 

 

Heh, heh, heh

 

 

Want a smoking gun?

 

 

Here you go... I just found a juicy one.

 

 

"Dear Dr. Wang,
> Regarding the Chinese meteorological data analyzed by Wang et al.
> [GRL, 1990] and Jones et al. [Nature, 1990], it now seems clear that
> there are severe problems. In particular, the data was obtained from
> 84 meteorological stations that can be classified as follows.
> 49 have no histories 08 have inconsistent histories 18 have
> substantial relocations 02 have single-year relocations 07 have
> no relocations Furthermore, some of the relocations are very
> distant--over 20 km.
> Others are to greatly different environments, as illustrated here:
> http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1323#comment-102970
>
> The above contradicts the published claim to have considered the
> histories of the stations, especially for the 49 stations that have no
> histories. Yet the claim is crucial for the research conclusions.
>
> I e-mailed you about this on April 11th. I also phoned you on April
> 13th: you said that you were in a meeting and would get back to me. I
> have received no response.
>
> I ask you to retract your GRL paper, in full, and to retract the
> claims made in Nature about the Chinese data. If you do not do so, I
> intend to publicly submit an allegation of research misconduct to your
> university at Albany.
>
>
> Douglas J. Keenan
> http://www.informath.org
> phone + 44 20 7537 4122
> The Limehouse Cut, London E14 6N, UK"

 

 

 

In the first reply...

 

"GHCN and NCAR don't have source codes either. It does
> all come from the NMSs - well mostly, but some from
> scientists."

 

 

 

Oh, so the NMSs makes up data that fits the global warming thoughts... Interesting. At least SOME is from scientists...

 

 

and finally the main part.

 

 

"Hi Phil,

This is all too predictable. This crowd of charlatans is always looking
for one thing they can harp on, where people w/ little knowledge of the
facts might be able to be convinced that there is a controversy. They
can't take on the whole of the science, so they look for one little
thing they can say is wrong, and thus generalize that the science is
entirely compromised. Of course, as nicely shown in the SPM, every
landmass is independently warming, and much as the models predict. So
they can harp all they want on one Chinese data set, it couldn't
possibly change the big picture (let alone even the trends for China). The

So they are simply hoping to blow this up to something that looks like a
legitimate controversy. The last thing you want to do is help them by
feeding the fire. Best thing is to ignore them completely. They no
longer have their friends in power here in the U.S., and the media has become entirely unsympathetic to the rants of the contrarians at least in the U.S.--the Wall Street Journal editorial page are about the only
place they can broadcast their disinformation. So in other words, for
contrarians the environment appears to have become very unfavorable for
development. I would advise Wang the same way. Keenan may or may not be
bluffing, but if he tries this I believe that British law would make it
easy for Wang to win a defamation suit against him (the burden is much
tougher in the states),

mike"

It doesn't say what you think it says...

 

 

 

 

Look at what else they said about this, looks like these guys take a page from the playbook here too!

 

 

"Hi Phil
I am sure you know that this is not about the science. It is an attack to
undermine the science in some way. In that regard I don't think you can
ignore it all, as Mike suggests as one option, but the response should try
to somehow label these guys and lazy and incompetent and unable to do the
huge amount of work it takes to construct such a database. Indeed
technology and data handling capabilities have evolved and not everything
was saved. So my feeble suggestion is to indeed cast aspersions on their
motives and throw in some counter rhetoric. Labeling them as lazy with
nothng better to do seems like a good thing to do.

How about "I tried to get some data from McIntyre from his 1990 paper, but
I was unable because he doesn't have such a paper because he has not done
any constructive work!"

There is no basis for retracting a paper given in Keenan's message. One
may have to offer a correction that a particular sentence was not correct
if it claimed something that indeed was not so. But some old instrumental
data are like paleo data, and can only be used with caution as the
metadata do not exist. It doesn't mean they are worthless and can not be
used. Offering to make a correction to a few words in a paper in a
trivial manner will undermine his case.

Kevin"

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is pretty obvious that numbers have been "massaged" to get people to buy into the hype...

 

 

The paper, that is often used to cite how global warming is man made... Had data that was supposed to be from locations that were factual.

 

The part that you quoted was proving they are not factual, but made up in many cases.

 

Hence...

 

49 have no histories