You can see the whole Earth from the Moon!

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


Evidence of

by Marc Sheppard

___November 19th, 2009

American Thinker


___Part TWO of TWO

__Links are in GREEN

And we now know
that on the very day
our exposé of the Briffa
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
(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)

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


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
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.”

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,
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
will certainly sate
those appetites.

Needless to say,
look no further than
American Thinker for
continuing political

And for those of you
wishing to join in this
criminal investigation,
the FOI2009 folder
is available for download

Oh yes,

As this mock-science
serves as justification
for trillions of dollars in
imposed and
proposed new
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)

___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)”

  1. 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:

    ( For Canadians who do not wish to lose their
    Sovereignty should PM Stephen Harper
    sign the Copenhagen Treaty )

  2. Very well said Btok!

    Thank You for those
    wonderful links.

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


Leave a Reply