ClimateGate: When scientists commit criminal fraud, does it count? (Part TWO of TWO)

The

Evidence of

Climate

Fraud

by Marc Sheppard

___November 19th, 2009

American Thinker

AMERICANTHINKER.COM

The Evidence of Climate Fraud

___Part TWO of TWO

__Links are in GREEN

And we now know

that on the very day

our exposé of the Briffa

scandal,

UN Climate Reports:

They Lie,

appeared here at AT,

Jones forwarded this

email response from

Tom Wigley of the

University Corporation

for Atmospheric Research

to Briffa:

It is distressing

to read that

American Stinker item.

But Keith does seem to

have got himself into

a mess.

As I pointed

out in emails,

Yamal is insignificant.

And you say that

(contrary to what

M&M say)

Yamal is *not* used

in MBH, etc.

So these facts alone

are enough to shoot

down M&M is a few

sentences

(which surely is the

only way to go –

complex and wordy

responses will be

counter productive).

But, more generally,

(even if it *is* irrelevant)

how does Keith explain

the McIntyre plot that

compares Yamal-12

with Yamal-all?

And how does he explain

the apparent “selection”

of the less well-replicated

chronology rather that

the later (better replicated)

chronology?

Of course,

I don’t know how often

Yamal-12 has really been

used in recent,

post-1995, work.

I suspect from what you

say it is much less often

that M&M say –

but where did they get

their information?

I presume they went

thru papers to see if

Yamal was cited,

a pretty foolproof method

if you ask me.

Perhaps these things can

be explained clearly and

concisely –

but I am not sure Keith

is able to do this as he

is too close to the issue

and probably quite

pissed of.

And the issue of

with-holding data is

still a hot potato, one

that affects both you

and Keith (and Mann).

Yes, there are reasons –

but many *good* scientists

appear to be unsympathetic

to these.

The trouble here is that

with-holding data looks

like hiding something,

and hiding means

(in some eyes)

that it is bogus science

that is being hidden.

I think Keith needs

to be very, very careful

in how he handles this.

I’d be willing to check

over anything he puts

together.

Tom.

Beyond his sophomoric cheap

shot at this fine publication’s

highly regarded name,

Wigley admitted that McIntyre’s

comparison of “Yamal-12 with

Yamal-all” implied a “selection”

of data on the part of Briffa.

Yet his concern was not

one of scientific integrity,

but instead that Briffa may

not be up to the task of

properly “explaining” the

cherry-picking as he is

“too close to the issue and

probably quite pissed of[f].”

And while offering his

assistance in the cover-up,

imploring caution because

“in some eyes”

it might appear they’re hiding

“bogus science,”

Wigley actually defended the

practice of withholding data.

Perchance the hitherto-

sequestered April 2007 document

entitled jones-foiathoughts.doc,

concerning reactions to FOIA

inquiries,

might lend some insight into

CRU’s atrocious reporting policies.

Within, J

ones lists three options

to such requests.

As an alternative to the

first of actual compliance,

he suggests he and his

co-conspirators might

“send them a subset removing

station data from some

of the countries” and

“remove many of the early

stations that we coded up

in the 1980s.”

Or perhaps

“send them the raw data as is,

by reconstructing it from GHCN”

(Global Historical

Climatology Network),

adding that

“this would be the raw data,

but it would annoy them.”

Amazing.

Yet this is but the tip of the

seasonally advancing iceberg.

Communiqués suborning

subterfuge abound here,

including one from May of 2008

in which Jones actually exhorts

Mann to “delete any emails

you may have had with Keith

re AR4″ and to entreat others

to perform likewise.

Was this in fact a fourth

(and likely illegal) Jones option

for dealing with McIntyre’s

FOIA requests?

There appear to be

thousands of emails,

documents,

reports,

and data files to review here.

So I’m sure this fledgling

story will continue to evolve

as greater minds than mine

analyze them throughout

the weekend.

For those sporting taste buds

leaning toward the technical,

rest assured that both

Climate Audit and

Watts Up With That

will certainly sate

those appetites.

Needless to say,

look no further than

American Thinker for

continuing political

analysis.

And for those of you

wishing to join in this

criminal investigation,

the FOI2009 folder

is available for download

here.

Criminal?

Oh yes,

indeed.

As this mock-science

serves as justification

for trillions of dollars in

imposed and

proposed new

taxes,

liens,

fees,

and rate hikes —

not to mention the

absurd wealth-redistribution

premise of international

climate debt

“reparations” —

such manipulation of

evidence should be

treated as exactly

what it is:

larceny on the grandest

scale in history.

Sorry, Al —

the science hasn’t

been settled.

It’s merely

been meddled.

___35 Inconvenient Truths:

________The Errors In

_______Al Gore’s Movie

______by Lord Monckton

Link to it below(link in GREEN)

___Global Warming Science

___and tons of other stuff

____on this amazing site!

___

2 Responses to “ClimateGate: When scientists commit criminal fraud, does it count? (Part TWO of TWO)”

I believe the Copenhagen
Treaty Summit should be cancelled!

How in God’s name can this be
considered a legal agreement
when a Huge Amount of the basis
for the Climate Change Data has
been found to be Fraudulently
Sabotaged and absolutely Inaccurate?

This is signing an agreement Document
that has no Legal Foundation of Realistic conditions
or elements due to inaccurate and Manipulated Data
as described and therefore,
anything stated on this Copenhagen Treaty Document
should be considered Null and Void!

Why create a Pandora’s Box,
subject to Lawsuits and Misgivings
due to total inaccuracy of Scientific measurements?

Which now is proving to be the case!

This Treaty has no Legal ground
to stand on and is and will be a
False Document from day one!

Any lawyers want to help out by
filing this Copenhagen Treaty be
classified as an illegal Treaty!

There are four reasons the UN and IMF,
Global Elitist Members Re: Ban Kai Moon
( Who has openly expressed his stong desire
for Global Governance ),
PM Gordon Brown,
Bilderberg Member Henry Kissinger,
Senior Bilderberg Member David Rockefeller
as well as an unprecedented number
of Dictators that run various countries who
are members of the United Nations
this Copenhagen Treaty that was designed
to acquire four goals,
the least of them being climate improvment
or protection as Lord Moncton has stated!

(1.) To de-industrialize Sovereign Countries
( No Jobs keep you dependant on State )

( 2.) Take your money and assets –
Hence, Fraudulent Carbon Emmissions
and Carbon Gases for Carbon Credits
and Carbon Taxes! (

3.) Take away your property

(4.) Take away your
Sovereignty and Freedom!

Check out what Government is doing
behind your back at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU

http://www.gopetition.com/online/32485.html
( For Canadians who do not wish to lose their
Sovereignty should PM Stephen Harper
sign the Copenhagen Treaty )

Loading...

Btok - December 1, 2009 at 5:30 am | Reply

Reply
Very well said Btok!

Thank You for those
wonderful links.

Thanks for stating the facts and
Thank You for reading 22MOON!

Rash

Loading...

rashmanly - December 1, 2009 at 6:51 am | Reply

Reply

22MOON.COM
You can see the whole Earth from the Moon!