A Place to Stand

The files revealed by hacking the CRU continue to gather momentum from the original Air Vent site to Devil's Kitchen, Biased BBC , Bishop Hill , Mr Eugenides etc in the UK & WattsUpWithThat, Climate Audit, Andrew Bolt The Register overseas on the net & remain censored on the MSM. Mark Wadsworth has read the papers. Michael Mann's RealClimate is, naturally censoring comments. This morning during the Andrew Marr show the BBC news censored it & in the papers round up 2 warming alarmist puff pieces were read out (on how Obama really intends to do something & another threat to polar bears) but the main story was entirely censored. What did we do before the net - well we got lied to & led by the noses by the fascists as the lies about Yugoslavia prove. The MSM cannot plug this information hole. It has the feel of an electronic Berlin Wall falling. There is no way that the BBC is ever again going to fool people into thinking it is a trustworthy news organisation.

While not having any intention of going through the lot of it I Did check up pages 33, 32 & 31 (randomly selected later ones) of these emails & found these on 31
#################################

Michael Mann on hiding some data whose origins researchers want to keep hiddenI propose, hoping that their is no loud objection, that we will include a line in our response indicating that we have confirmed that we get similar results using the GKSS Erik simulation. We'll leave it at that. We don't need to show that result necessarily, unless the editor/reviewers demand to see proof, and we certainly don't have to reveal where we got the GKSS data. As I mentioned, there are enough groups out there that now have it, that VS and Zorita would not know the source, and we would not reveal it.

We feel as if we cannot completely hide the fact that we have confirmed our result w/ GKSS, hence the "compromise" suggested above. Meanwhile, we can pursue a more thorough, official collaborative effort in the future.

At this point , it is fair to

Keith Briffa

say that this adjustment was arbitrary and the link between Bristlecone pine growth and CO2 is , at the very least, arguable

Martin Juckes
At this point , it is fair to

say that this adjustment was arbitrary and the link between Bristlecone pine

growth and CO2 is , at the very least, arguable
---------------------------
and I am surprised by the extreme weakness of the evidence. There is

one

> study of 27 strip-bark pines which shows that they clearly developed

> anomalous growth around 1850. Attributing this to CO2 is odd, to say

the

> least

Raymond S Bradley

There are other examples of how Jack Eddy's grey literature publication was misused. In

a paper in Science by Zielinski et al. (1994) [v.264, p.xxx xxxx xxxx]--attached-- they

P Jones

in addition to a poleward shift in the storm tracks and an > increase in their average intensity, there is a decrease in the number > of storms . This is probably too much for the bullet, so that a less > specific version may be required. > > I think the whole bullet could be: > > Mid-latitude westerly winds have shifted polewards and stengthened since > about the 1960s, with associated changes in storms [ie dropping any mention of the decrease in numbers indeed that the only change is that "associated" with strengthening this may not be completly lying but is dishonest & certainly not sciene - Neil]

reproduced [in Figure 1c] a similarly schematic version of Holocene temperatures giving

the following citation, "Taken from J. A. Eddy and R. S. Bradley, Earth-quest 5 (insert)

(1991), as modified from J. T. Houghton, G. J. Jenkins, J. J. Ephraums, Climate Change,

The IPCC Scientific Assessment (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1990)."

But I had nothing to do with that one!

So, that's how a crude fax from Jack Eddy became the definitive IPCC record on the last

millennium!

Labels: eco-fascism, global warming, Media