Climate Hoax

[red viking]

4 hours ago, Offthemat said:

 

Northern Europe has been sweltering under a heat wave, and naturally global warming alarmists are out in force. Thus, in the London Times: “Where are all those climate sceptics now?” News reports consistently say that this summer’s temperatures are the highest ever.

Is that true? Not really:

 

“Europe’s heatwave is the hottest and most humid ever” – New Scientist article headline
***
In 2014,  Wetter et al published a paper: The year-long unprecedented European heat and drought of 1540 – a worst case. Admittedly the paper was comparing the megadrought of 1540 with the European and Russian droughts of 2003 and 2010, but it is hard to believe from their description that the current European drought is any worse. It is also very hard to believe that the current European drought is so much worse than the 1540 megadrought that it is evidence of a man-made existential threat. And it is extremely hard to believe that any media outlet has carefully checked the reported 1540 heat and drought against the 2026 heat and drought to make sure that their use of “unprecedented”, “worst ever” etc is accurate. 

Weather

 

From the abstract:

The heat waves of 2003 in Western Europe and 2010 in Russia, commonly labelled as rare climatic anomalies outside of previous experience, are often taken as harbingers of more frequent extremes in the global warming-influenced future. However, a recent reconstruction of spring–summer temperatures for WE resulted in the likelihood of significantly higher temperatures in 1540. In order to check the plausibility of this result we investigated the severity of the 1540 drought by putting forward the argument of the known soil desiccation-temperature feedback. Based on more than 300 first-hand documentary  weather report sources originating from an area of 2 to 3 million km2, we show that Europe was affected by an unprecedented 11-month-long Megadrought. The estimated number of precipitation days and precipitation amount for Central and Western Europe in 1540 is significantly lower than the 100-year minima of the instrumental measurement period for spring, summer and autumn. This result is supported by independent documentary evidence about extremely low river flows and Europe-wide wild-, forest- and settlement fires. We found that an event of this severity cannot be simulated by state-of-the-art climate models.…

As long as we are on the subject of climate news, let’s applaud the record growth of the Great Barrier Reef. Liberals are gnashing their teeth, or they were in 2014, anyway:
 

Sadly for liberals, the reef is now bigger than ever (as far as we know) before. Have you ever noticed that liberals never, ever express happiness about good environmental news? It is almost as though they are hoping for environmental disaster:

Bjorn Lomborg asks a good question: why, after all the wailing over the supposedly impending demise of the Great Barrier Reef, are we not seeing news stories about the reef’s apparently unprecedented growth? 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2026/08/heat-wave-2.php

You need to quit with your dumb winger propaganda and lies.

AI:

While the reef retains higher coral cover than many reefs globally, the frequency of mass bleaching events is increasing, and natural recovery periods are shortening. This means that without ongoing restoration and climate mitigation efforts, the reef’s natural growth is currently outpaced by environmental stressors. Active restoration programs provide hope for localized recovery, but large-scale natural growth is limited under current conditions aims.gov.au+2.
In summary, the Great Barrier Reef is not experiencing widespread natural growth at present, but human-led coral cultivation and replanting initiatives are helping to sustain and rebuild sections of the reef

[Caveira]

3 minutes ago, red viking said:

There's exactly zero evidence of a systematic and worldwide effort to fudge historical climate data to make it look as though global warming is occurring. It would also be difficult because there are temperature stations all over the world that independently reported data over the past hundred years or whatever. There would literally have to be tends thousands of people or more in on this and keeping it a secret. 

This is almost as dumb as the flat earth or fake moon landing theories. The stuff I see from the wingers becomes more and more unbelievable every year. 

Hide the decline boss 

[red viking]

1 hour ago, Caveira said:

Hide the decline boss 

The "decline?" Where did you get that BS idea? Twitter? Once again, there's zero data to support anything like this. 

If a common idiot at the mid latitude wants to ignore the data and assume a grand conspiracy among thousands of scientists, I can see where it is possible that they think the earth's temps are stable. 

However, the difference is much more pronounced at higher latitudes and near oceans, where even if you are dumb enough to ignore the data, anybody middle age or more can see the huge difference over their lifetime. 

Go ahead and tell somebody from Alaska or northern Canada about your BS "global cooling" theory and see their reaction. 

Edited August 14 by red viking

[Caveira]

14 minutes ago, red viking said:

The "decline?" Where did you get that BS idea? Twitter? Once again, there's zero data to support anything like this. 

If a common idiot at the mid latitude wants to ignore the data and assume a grand conspiracy among thousands of scientists, I can see where it is possible that they think the earth's temps are stable. 

However, the difference is much more pronounced at higher latitudes and near oceans, where even if you are dumb enough to ignore the data, anybody middle age or more can see the huge difference over their lifetime. 

Go ahead and tell somebody from Alaska or northern Canada about your BS "global cooling" theory and see their reaction. 

If you had a PhD you may personally know this one 

The "hide the decline" email was written by Dr. Phil Jones, who was the director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia at the time. 

Sent on November 16, 1999, the email was addressed to scientists Ray Bradley, Malcolm Hughes, and Michael Mann. In the private message, Jones wrote: "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) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.

[red viking]

14 minutes ago, Caveira said:

If you had a PhD you may personally know this one 

The "hide the decline" email was written by Dr. Phil Jones, who was the director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia at the time. 

Sent on November 16, 1999, the email was addressed to scientists Ray Bradley, Malcolm Hughes, and Michael Mann. In the private message, Jones wrote: "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) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.

What's the context of that and does that mean earth is cooling? Without more context that proves nothing. 

Do you also think the data for rapidly rising sea levels and overall decline in glacier volume is also "fake data?" Everybody is in on that too? 

[Caveira]

1 minute ago, red viking said:

What's the context of that and does that mean earth is cooling? Without more context that proves nothing. 

Do you also think the data for rapidly rising sea levels and overall decline in glacier volume is also "fake data?" Everybody is in on that too? 

 

Sent on November 16, 1999, the email was addressed to scientists Ray Bradley, Malcolm Hughes, and Michael Mann. In the private message, Jones wrote: "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)

[red viking]

1 hour ago, Caveira said:

 

Sent on November 16, 1999, the email was addressed to scientists Ray Bradley, Malcolm Hughes, and Michael Mann. In the private message, Jones wrote: "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)

So what does that mean specifically? You provided zero context

[red viking]

AI

A November 16, 1999, email from Professor Phil Jones of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia used the phrase "Mike’s Nature trick" to "hide the decline" in a temperature reconstruction graph for a World Meteorological Organization report. This leaked message became the focal point of the 2009 "Climategate" controversy. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Context of the Email

Sender/Recipient: Sent by Phil Jones to fellow climate scientists (including Ray Bradley, Malcolm Hughes, and Michael Mann).

The "Trick": A data-handling technique used to splice actual instrumental temperature data onto the end of tree-ring proxy data.

The "Decline": Refers to the "divergence problem," where certain post-1960 tree-ring proxy data showed a downward temperature trend while actual measured global temperatures were rising. [1]

Inquiries and Findings

Independent investigations (including those by the UK Parliament and the Muir Russell panel) examined the emails.

The panels concluded that the scientists did not commit scientific fraud or manipulate core climate data.

Investigators criticized the researchers for producing a confusing and poorly labeled graph for a public report summary, but noted there was no deliberate intent to mislead

[Caveira]

9 minutes ago, red viking said:

AI

A November 16, 1999, email from Professor Phil Jones of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia used the phrase "Mike’s Nature trick" to "hide the decline" in a temperature reconstruction graph for a World Meteorological Organization report. This leaked message became the focal point of the 2009 "Climategate" controversy. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

 

Context of the Email

Sender/Recipient: Sent by Phil Jones to fellow climate scientists (including Ray Bradley, Malcolm Hughes, and Michael Mann).

The "Trick": A data-handling technique used to splice actual instrumental temperature data onto the end of tree-ring proxy data.

The "Decline": Refers to the "divergence problem," where certain post-1960 tree-ring proxy data showed a downward temperature trend while actual measured global temperatures were rising. [1]

 

 

Inquiries and Findings

Independent investigations (including those by the UK Parliament and the Muir Russell panel) examined the emails.

The panels concluded that the scientists did not commit scientific fraud or manipulate core climate data.

Investigators criticized the researchers for producing a confusing and poorly labeled graph for a public report summary, but noted there was no deliberate intent to mislead

Per u 777.13 and the rest of yall.  Ai cannot be used or read for any purposes

especially someone who claims to be a real scientist 

[red viking]

 

Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy

Published Dec 8, 2009 Updated Aug 25, 2011

The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light. The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate.

Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing

Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.

A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.

Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."

A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.

The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."

Other agencies and media outlets have investigated the substance of the emails.

The Environmental Protection Agency, in response to petitions against action to curb heat-trapping emissions, dismissed attacks on the science rooted in the stolen emails.

Factcheck.org debunked claims that the emails put the conclusions of climate science into question.

Politifact.com rated claims that the emails falsify climate science as "false."

An Associated Press review of the emails found that they "don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions."

Background Information

Scientists Statement—An Open Letter to Congress from U.S. Scientists on Climate Change and Recently Stolen Emails (pdf)

Letter from James McCarthy, a former Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author, to Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) (pdf) 

Press Releases and Factchecks

Nov. 23, 2009—Contrarians Using Hacked E-mails to Attack Climate Science

Dec. 02, 2009—Members of Congress Advance Climate Change Conspiracy Theories

Dec. 02, 2009—More Scientists Join Call to Reject Stolen E-mail Claims

Dec. 04, 2009—Top U.S. Scientists Tell Congress Stolen Emails Have No Bearing on Climate Science

Dec. 17, 2009—Factcheck: Sen. Inhofe Can't Even Get the Dates Right on Stolen Emails

Dec. 18, 2009—UCS Urges Rep. Sensenbrenner to Stop Attacking Scientists

Dec. 23, 2009—Patrick Michales Falsely Blaims Content of Stolen Emails for Resignations at Climate Science Journal

Additional Resources

Real Climate has been following the hacked e-mail story with posts from scientists explaining what phrases in various e-mails mean.

Phil Jones did an interview with the The Guardian on the e-mails.

Michael Mann covered several of the claims on DeSmog Blog.

Michael Mann repsonded to an op-ed by former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin in the Washington Post.

Some news organizations have misreported critical aspects of the stolen email story. There is no evidence scientists did anything with temperature data they weren't already doing openly in peer-reviewed papers.

At this time, there is no evidence that scientists "fudged," "manipulated" or "manufactured" data. These unsupported claims, based on taking the emails out of context, are being promoted by long-time anti-science opponents of climate change legislation. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the University of East Anglia and Penn State University are separately looking into the contents of the stolen emails to assess these claims.

While the emails have raised some concerns, the email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate.

University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit Director Phil Jones wasn't "hiding" anything that wasn't already being openly discussed in scientific papers. He was using a "trick"—a technique—published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

This email exchange from 1999 seems to refer to scientists examining past climate data and communicating with one another about it. In particular, Jones is talking about how scientists compare temperature data from thermometers with temperature data derived from tree rings. Comparing that data allows scientists to derive past temperature data for several centuries before accurate thermometer measurements were available. The global average surface temperature since 1880 is based on thermometer and satellite temperature measurements.

The "trick" is actually a technique (in other words, a "trick of the trade") used in a peer-reviewed, academic science journal article published in 1998. "Hiding the decline," another phrase that has received much attention, refers to another technique used in another academic science journal article. In any case, no one was tricking anyone or hiding anything. Rather, this email exchange shows scientists communicating about different ways to look at the same data that were being discussed at the time in the peer-reviewed literature. Later the same data were discussed at length in a 2007 IPCC report.

In some parts of the world, tree rings are a good substitute for temperature record. Trees form a ring of new growth every growing season. Generally, warmer temperatures produce thicker tree rings, while colder temperatures produce thinner ones. Other factors, such as precipitation, soil properties, and the tree's age also can affect tree ring growth.

The "trick," which was used in a paper published in 1998 in the science journal Nature, is to combine the older tree ring data with thermometer data. Combining the two data sets can be difficult, and scientists are always interested in new ways to make temperature records more accurate.

Tree rings are a largely consistent source of data for the past 2,000 years. But since the 1960s, scientists have noticed there are a handful of tree species in certain areas that appear to indicate temperatures that are warmer or colder than we actually know they are from direct thermometer measurement at weather stations.

"Hiding the decline" in this email refers to omitting data from some Siberian trees after 1960. This omission was openly discussed in the latest climate science update in 2007 from the IPCC, so it is not "hidden" at all.

Why Siberian trees? In the Yamal region of Siberia, there is a small set of trees with rings that are thinner than expected after 1960 when compared with actual thermometer measurements there. Scientists are still trying to figure out why these trees are outliers. Some analyses have left out the data from these trees after 1960 and have used thermometer temperatures instead.

Techniques like this help scientists reconstruct past climate temperature records based on the best available data.

In another email, Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, wrote that systems for observing short-term annual climate variation are inadequate and complained: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't…. Our observing system is inadequate."

Scientists have high confidence about global temperature trends over recent decades because those observations are based on a massive amount of data. That's why we can say with certainty that over the past several decades, the Earth has warmed. We can also say with certainty that continuing to overload the atmosphere with carbon dioxide will cause it to warm further.

But scientists are still trying to understand how the climate shifts in the short term, on a year-to-year basis for instance. In this email, Trenberth is bemoaning the lack of monitoring equipment in the ocean and atmosphere around the world that would give scientists more information to help understand exactly how short-term climate variation happens. In particular, he references 2008, which was cooler than scientists expected, but still among the 10 warmest years since instrumental records began.

The sentiments in Trenberth's private email reflect his public communication. Trenberth talked about this same issue in a scientific paper in 2009 (pdf), in which he addresses this exact question.

There is no clear evidence to date that scientists violated important principles of scientific integrity. And the emails do not undermine the science.

Some emails relating to avoiding freedom of information requests and keeping articles out of journals have raised concerns about scientific integrity. Scientists should always be as open as possible with their data and methods. Transparency is critical for accountability on all sides. For his part, Phil Jones claims he didn't delete any email messages in response to freedom of information requests. If he did, that conduct would be wrong. But to date, there is no evidence that any emails were deleted.

Science must be viewed in context. When one places the emails in context, they don't amount to much—and as noted above, they do not undermine climate data or research. Likewise, it is important to understand the scientific integrity claims against the scientists in context.

Regardless of whether the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit staff complied with freedom of information requests, their data is still rigorous and matches the three other independent temperature data sets at NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Japanese Meteorological Society.

Much has been made about emails regarding a certain paper that some scientists did not think should have been published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. These emails focus on a paper on solar variability in the climate over time. It was published in a peer-reviewed journal called Climate Research, but under unusual circumstances. Half of the editorial board of Climate Research resigned in protest against what they felt was a failure of the peer review process. The paper, which argued that current warming was unexceptional, was disputed by scientists whose work was cited in the paper. Many subsequent publications set the record straight, which demonstrates how the peer review process over time tends to correct such lapses. Scientists later discovered that the paper was funded by the American Petroleum Institute.

In a later e-mail, Phil Jones references two other papers he didn't hold in high esteem. "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

Yet, the papers in question made it into the IPCC report, indicating that no restrictions on their incorporation were made. The IPCC process contains hundreds of authors and reviewers, with an exacting and transparent review process.

The fact that groups opposing action on climate change are crying "conspiracy" shows how desperate they are to discredit scientists.

The thousands of stolen emails span more than a decade. Whoever stole them could only produce a handful of messages that, when taken out of context, might seem suspicious to people who are not familiar with the intimate details of climate science.

Opponents of climate action have been attacking climate science for years. The fact that out-of-context personal attacks on scientists are the most successful argument they can offer speaks volumes about their failure to gain any traction by arguing against the evidence.

Their strategy has unfortunate consequences, too. On December 8, the Guardian reported that University of East Anglia scientists have been receiving death threats.

The timing of the publication of these emails should make us suspicious about the motivations of the people who hacked them.

The stolen emails were published just two weeks ahead of a major U.N. climate change conference in Copenhagen. According to a British newspaper, they were originally hacked in October. Whoever published these emails likely wanted to spread misinformation about climate science to try to undermine the conference. The University of East Anglia, which housed the emails, has launched an investigation to determine who stole them.

Scientists are as human as anybody else.

Some of the other emails simply show scientists expressing frustration and—in one email—even talking (not seriously, we hope) about beating up someone who had, in his view, made an unfair, public attack on his colleague. Such chatter is not surprising to find in private emails. But they have generated widespread attention in part because they don't mesh with the public's image of scientists.

 

Scientists have a wide array of dispositions. But regardless of how scientists act, they should all advance their arguments through evidence and valid scientific interpretations. The process of science is what is important. Over time, rigorous analyses, vetted through expert peer review, tend to weed out poorly substantiated arguments. And only the best explanations for how the world works—such as the obvious evidence that excess carbon dioxide emissions are driving global warming—survive the process.

 

[red viking]

1 minute ago, Caveira said:

Per u 777.13 and the rest of yall.  Ai cannot be used or read for any purposes

especially someone who claims to be a real scientist 

I've completely debunked your pathetic argument above. Actually a pasted article. You're probably too dumb to understand it. 

[Caveira]

3 minutes ago, red viking said:

I've completely debunked your pathetic argument above. Actually a pasted article. You're probably too dumb to understand it. 

Ai isn’t reliable.  You didn’t prove anything per u.   Also you didn’t refute them fudging the climate change data

[red viking]

4 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Ai isn’t reliable.  You didn’t prove anything per u.   Also you didn’t refute them fudging the climate change data

They fudged nothing, per the article  idiot. Its explained. 

[Caveira]

Just now, red viking said:

They fudged nothing, per the article  idiot. Its explained. 

You didn’t post an article you posted ai slop 

[red viking]

16 minutes ago, Caveira said:

You didn’t post an article you posted ai slop 

Idiot. See the longer post above. 

https://www.ucs.org/resources/debunking-misinformation-about-stolen-climate-emails

Edited August 15 by red viking

[Caveira]

4 minutes ago, red viking said:

Idiot. See the longer post above. 

https://www.ucs.org/resources/debunking-misinformation-about-stolen-climate-emails

Padawan lol 

This author has a PhD in climatology.   Your rules   They must have one to have a valid opinion.

The Climategate Whitewash Continues", written by climatologist Patrick Michaels - Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Ecological Climatology.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140

In the article, Michaels heavily criticizes the independent reviews (such as the Muir Russell inquiry) that cleared the Climatic Research Unit scientists, arguing that the panels failed to audit the "ugly pressure tactics discussed in the Climategate emails" and instead relied on perfunctory interviews with the accused researchers rather than the critics they allegedly targeted

[Caveira]

1 hour ago, red viking said:

Idiot. See the longer post above. 

https://www.ucs.org/resources/debunking-misinformation-about-stolen-climate-emails

For the record.  What your likely hiding from your is the main author dr James McCarthy does not have a PhD and he was highly politically motivated.   He was also working with a California Democrat Barbara boxer.    Your other large prominent contributors dr Michael e Mann and dr Phil jones.   ….. Well neither of them have a PhD in climatology either.    They’re basically a bunch of themat.com posters   

based on your rules.   You need to resign.   Sounds like checkmate 
 

 

Edited August 15 by Caveira

[Offthemat]

5 hours ago, red viking said:

You need to quit with your dumb winger propaganda and lies.

AI:

While the reef retains higher coral cover than many reefs globally, the frequency of mass bleaching events is increasing, and natural recovery periods are shortening. This means that without ongoing restoration and climate mitigation efforts, the reef’s natural growth is currently outpaced by environmental stressors. Active restoration programs provide hope for localized recovery, but large-scale natural growth is limited under current conditions aims.gov.au+2.
In summary, the Great Barrier Reef is not experiencing widespread natural growth at present, but human-led coral cultivation and replanting initiatives are helping to sustain and rebuild sections of the reef

So on average, the reef is growing larger but it is mostly dying.  Kinda like the Palestinian population growing while they’re being genocided.  That’s what it takes these days to be a science teacher.  Complete stupidity and some ai slop.

[Offthemat]

 

[red viking]

9 hours ago, Offthemat said:

So on average, the reef is growing larger but it is mostly dying.  Kinda like the Palestinian population growing while they’re being genocided.  That’s what it takes these days to be a science teacher.  Complete stupidity and some ai slop.

It's actually very simple. It's improving in specific areas over short periods of time, but overall still declining. It's sort of like how the earth is obviously warming over time but the winger idiots look at a specific cold spell that happens in a specific location and try to use that to refute global warming. 

I see a trend...

[ionel]

4 hours ago, red viking said:

It's sort of like how the earth is obviously warming over time but the winger idiots look at ...

I thought left winger idiots decided its not global warming but climate change?  

[red viking]

1 hour ago, ionel said:

I thought left winger idiots decided its not global warming but climate change?  

Global warming is under the umbrella of climate change. There was never a change in terminology. 

[Offthemat]

1 hour ago, ionel said:

I thought left winger idiots decided its not global warming but climate change?  

His indoctrination is dated. 

[red viking]

6 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

His indoctrination is dated. 

Takes a 5th grade science education to understand the differencebetween the two and how they relate. Thats tough for wingers though. 

Edited August 15 by red viking

[ionel]

30 minutes ago, red viking said:

Global warming is under the umbrella of climate change. There was never a change in terminology. 

... and when was the climate not changing?