Saturday, October 07, 2017

Hurricanes Are NOT Caused By Climate Change!

*******
Hurricane Harvey
*******
UN Head Offers Misleading Data on Hurricanes and Climate Change
President Trump has good reason to want a do-over when it comes to the Paris Agreement and the "green" financial commitments made by Barack Obama.
October 6, 2017
The United Nations is manipulating statistics to try and prove a causal relationship between the reported increase in carbon dioxide concentrations and the purported increase in extreme hurricane events over the last several decades, focusing in particular on the 2017 Atlantic hurricane season. 
“Over the past 30 years, the number of annual weather-related disasters has nearly tripled, and economic losses have quintupled,” UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said at a press briefing on Wednesday. To “prove” his point, graphs were distributed to reporters that show carbon dioxide concentration levels and ocean temperatures rising since 1960, together with an increase in the number of meteorological natural disasters. “Scientists are learning more and more about the links between climate change and extreme weather,” the Secretary General added. He then predictably called for “countries to implement the Paris Agreement [on climate change], and with greater ambition.”
The UN is using the familiar logical fallacy of equating statistical correlations with proof of causation
The UN is using the familiar logical fallacy of equating statistical correlations with proof of causation. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory issued a report, last revised on August 30, 2017, that demonstrates the crucial difference between mere statistical correlation and proof of causation.  The report found that “records of Atlantic hurricane activity show some correlation, on multi-year time-scales, between local tropical Atlantic sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the Power Dissipation Index (PDI),” which is “an aggregate measure of Atlantic hurricane activity.” However, the report went on to conclude that it is “premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.” Computer models may indeed predict increased storm intensity and destruction by the end of this century based on some measures of historical data showing increases in sea surface temperatures. However, the extent to which this would be due to an increase in 21st century greenhouse warming caused by human activity is indeterminate at the present time.
Moreover, even the statistical correlations may be misleading. The report examined records of past Atlantic tropical storm or hurricane numbers (1878 to present), which it found to be incomplete in terms of reported storms prior to 1965. Reliance on ship-based observations during that period meant that some storms, particularly short-lived ones, were simply overlooked because they had less opportunity for chance encounters with ship traffic. There were no satellites more than five decades ago to observe and measure hurricanes with the same degree of accuracy as can be performed today. Even with the sketchier information we do have regarding hurricanes in the latter part of the nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth century, we know that five of the eight seasons with the most major hurricanes since 1851 occurred prior to 1965. The strongest hurricane on record to hit the U.S. occurred on the Florida Keys on Sept. 2, 1935. And while Hurricane Maria was a tragically devastating hurricane to be sure, Puerto Rico suffered an even worse hurricane in 1928.
“In summary,” the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory report stated, “neither our model projections for the 21st century nor our analyses of trends in Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm counts over the past 120+ yr support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic.”
Christopher Landsea, who was the science and operations officer at the National Hurricane Center in 2010, observed that hurricanes run in cycles. “The late nineteenth century was a very busy period,” he said. “Then from the 1900s until about 1925, it was very quiet. The late 20s to the 60s were very busy. The 1970s to the mid-90s were quiet again, and then from the late 90s onward, it’s been generally very busy.”
With respect to natural disasters and their aftermath, the United Nations is at its best when it works to deliver humanitarian aid to devastated areas. “To date,” according to Secretary General Guterres, “the United Nations and its partners have provided a variety of humanitarian assistance to the Caribbean region by air and by sea: 18 tons of food; 3 million water purification tablets; 3,000 water tanks; 2,500 tents; 2,000 mosquito nets and school kits; 500 debit cards for cash assistance; and much else.”
The United Nations is as its worst when it politicizes natural disasters such as the recent hurricanes and seeks to squelch any divergence from the conventional wisdom. “I have not yet lost my hope that what is happening will be making those that are still skeptical about climate change to be more and more realizing that this, indeed, is a major threat for the international community at the present moment,” the Secretary General told reporters. He wants the Paris Agreement to be strengthened. He said, “what is important is that the Paris Agreement is the solid foundation to allow us to have the ambition to go further and to make sure that we do not have a warming of the planet at the catastrophic levels that would happen if we’d just move on as we are.”
The true science deniers, which include the UN bureaucracy and its leaders, are those who try to shut down scientific skepticism regarding demonstrable manipulation of data and over-reliance on unvalidated computer models to support the political agenda behind the Paris Agreement. Even the UN itself admitted back in 2007 the shortcoming of its models: “In climate research and modeling,  we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” However, the UN is institutionally incapable of resisting the prospect of hundreds of billions of dollars a year or more of wealth redistributed from richer nations to the less developed nations under its aegis, premised on the predictive power of just such models. President Trump has good reason to want a do-over when it comes to the Paris Agreement and the “green” financial commitments made by Barack Obama.

Joseph A. Klein is the author of Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom.
*******
Climate Change Machinery Cranks Up Following Recent Hurricanes
James Shott
Oct. 3, 2017
Hurricane Irma and Jose
It’s as predictable as the sun rising in the east: When any notable weather event or series of them occurs, the human-made climate change enthusiasts engage their propaganda machine and bombard us with more dire warnings of impending doom. This seems more important to them than the suffering caused and damage done.
When Hurricanes Harvey and Irma struck the southern and eastern U.S. in close succession recently, they were the first two Category 4 hurricanes to do so in the same year in 166 years of record-keeping. Immediately, self-identified weather specialists Leonardo DiCaprio and Pope Francis burst forth with dire warnings of human-caused climate change.
Al Gore, who makes his money these days writing books about imagined weather calamities without the benefit of knowledge of the subject, told the World Economic Forum, “This is an unusual time. Within the last two weeks, we have had two more record-breaking, climate-connected storms."
"We are departing the familiar bounds of history as we have known it since our civilization began," he said. "And why? Because today like all days we will put another 110 million tons of man-made heat-trapping pollution into the atmosphere, using the sky as an open sewer."
Creating heat-trapping pollution is one thing Gore does know well. An article in The Daily Signal said this: "According to the report, compiled from public records requests and information from the Nashville Electric Service, Gore’s 20-room, 10,070-square-foot, Colonial-style mansion consumed an average of 19,241 kilowatt-hours per month — more than 21.3 times that of the U.S. household average of 901 kilowatt-hours monthly."
If global warming/climate change resulting from human activities is really as threatening as Gore preaches, one might expect him to lead the way toward lowering pollution levels, rather than doing the opposite. Gore’s actions and his words send substantially different messages.
Those advocating the idea that the activities of humans harm the environment seem to ignore the bad news for their cause, which is good news for the rest of us: Data demonstrates that there has been no real warming for nearly 20 years. That, among other inconvenient truths, is routinely ignored.
Dr. Roy Spencer is a real climate scientist, unlike Gore, DiCaprio and the pope. His education is in atmospheric sciences, his doctorate is in meteorology, and he works at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Fed up with the pseudo-science flying around these days, he wrote a book challenging the commonly paraded idea that this season’s hurricanes are what climate change looks like. He argues that these storms are neither an aberration nor a result of rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
A former senior scientist for NASA, Spencer explains, "There have been many years with multiple Cat 4 hurricanes in the Atlantic, but there is nothing about global warming theory that says more of those will make landfall.” He adds: “While the official estimate is that this was the first time two Cat 4 storms hit the U.S., since Florida was virtually unpopulated before 1900, we probably don’t really know."
Spencer cited data of all major hurricanes to strike Florida since 1900 that show no increase in frequency or intensity as measured by wind speed. Florida’s worst hurricane on record struck on Labor Day 1935 and is one of only three Category 5 storms on record to make landfall in the U.S.
Datasets from the journal Geophysical Research Letters in 2011 show that the global number and intensity of tropical storms and hurricanes have not increased over the past four decades, and tropical storms and hurricanes from 1999 to 2011 are significantly below the peak strengths. As with the data showing no atmospheric warming since 1998, this data strengthens the idea that the global warming theory is just a lot of hot air.
But why would actual scientists participate in promoting a ruse without a true scientific basis?
Because there is a lot of research money for the taking if you support this hoax.
One scientist finally had enough of the dramatic changes in his field.
In October of 2010, Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara, sent a message to Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, who was at the time president of the American Physical Society.
"When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago,” Lewis wrote, “it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).”
“How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d'ĂȘtre of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs,” he said. “For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.”
This is a troubled time for America. It is a time when some scientists and journalists think their personal concerns are more important than the ethics and standards of their professions, or the needs of the country.
*******
Hurricanes like Irma and Harvey are not caused by climate change
Graham Lloyd
September 11, 2017
Storm damage from Hurricane Irma on the Caribbean island of Saint Martin.
As the heat continued to build in the Caribbean this northern summer fishermen and ocean old-­timers knew there was a dark side to the hot days and calm conditions where turquoise waters sparkle to the horizon.
“We are worried about what this means for hurricanes,” said Puerto Morelos guide Carlos as he loaded day trippers to snorkel on the northern tip of the world’s second-largest barrier reef.
As tourists frolicked in Mexico, the first hints of catastrophe were coming to life half a world away in Ethiopia.
Wisps of wind that started in the cradle of civilisation were nourished by warmer waters and favourable conditions in the Atlan­tic Ocean to become meteorological monsters.
Cyclone Harvey made a cha­otic path as a tropical depression, going past Belize and into the Gulf of Mexico where it sucked up the hot waters to become a rain-heavy hurricane that swamped Texas.
After making landfall near Port Aransas on the Gulf Coast on ­August 26, Harvey was held in place for days by two high-pressure systems to dump record rains on Houston.
Since Harvey, the Atlantic Ocean has been a launch pad for super-strength hurricanes that have barrelled through the Caribbean islands like a bowling alley of carnage.
The end of the range is Florida where millions of people have been evacuated in anticipation of Irma making landfall late last night (AEST).
Around-the-clock media cover­age followed Hurricane Irma as it left a trail of catastrophic damage through an area best known as a tropical playground for the rich and famous.
Tabloid newspapers have been able to measure the hurricane season through the eyes of celebrity property.
Virgin boss Richard Branson has embellished his reputation for having an adventurous spirit by hunkering down with staff in the concrete wine cellar of his luxury resort on Necker Island in the British Virgin Islands.
After a direct hit from Irma last week, Branson emerged from the cellar to declare the island devastated.
“I have never seen anything like this hurricane,” he said. “We are still assessing the damage, but whole houses and trees have disappeared.”
Branson’s son Sam said boats throughout the Virgin Islands had been “piled up like matchsticks in the harbour”.
“Huge cargo ships were thrown out of the water and into rocks. ­Resorts have been decimated,” Branson Jr said. “The houses have their roofs blown off; even some churches where people sheltered have lost roofs,’’ he said.
US national guardsmen help the elderly find shelter at Estero, Florida.
US President Donald Trump’s two-hectare Le Chateau des ­Palmiers estate on Saint Martin was hit, with 95 per cent of the ­island’s buildings and infrastructure destroyed.
Mick Jagger and Oprah Winfrey reportedly had dodged the worst of Irma’s fury. But Robert De Niro vowed to push ahead with ­development of a $250 million luxury resort he is building with James Packer on the eastern ­Caribbean island of Barbuda.
Barbuda was smashed by Irma and still faces a direct hit by Hurricane Jose, which is following ­immediately behind.
“Barbuda now is literally rubble,” Antigua and Barbuda Prime Minister Gaston Browne said in the wake of Irma.
Celebrities aside, the stark real­ity is that hundreds of thousands of people have been left homeless across the Caribbean.
Many will be without electricity for months. Recovery costs will probably run to more than $US100 billion ($125bn) and recon­struction efforts will continue for years.
The final bill will depend greatly on how badly Florida is hit, the path the hurricanes follow and how many more hurricanes ­develop in a furious year that has broken a more than decade-long drought for the US.
September 11 marks the peak of the northern hemisphere cyclone season that will run to the end of October.
But even before the 2017 season has ended and the damage bill has been tallied, debate has started about whether human activity has made the fierce hurricane conditions even more extreme.
Some commentators, including The Sydney Morning Herald, were quick to claim Harvey was ­effectively “karma” for Texas ­because of its history of oil and gas production.
Oscar-winning actor Jennifer Lawrence said Harvey and Irma were signs of “Mother Nature’s rage and wrath” at the US for electing Trump to the presidency and not believing in man-made climate change.
The Tim Flannery-backed Climate Council declared: “Fingerprints of climate change all over Tropical Storm Harvey.”
Council chief executive Amanda McKenzie issued a statement to claim climate change was driving and influencing extreme weather events around the globe.
“Climate change is now supercharging extreme weather events including storms, bushfires, heavy rainfall and floods,” she said.
“This is occurring in a more ­energetic climate system, that’s warmer and loaded up with more moisture than ever before.”
McKenzie said Harvey was a “window into our future”.
Traffic crawls north as Florida residents abandon their homes ahead of the storm.
One problem with the Climate Council analysis is that Irma ­developed into a major hurricane over relatively cool waters in the Atlantic. Surface temperatures where the hurricane formed were 26.5C, about two degrees below what is considered necessary to build a major hurricane, climate scientist Judith Curry said.
“So why did Irma develop into a major hurricane?” Curry asked. “We can’t blame 26.5C temperatures in the mid-Atlantic on global warming.”
Other weather factors may ­explain the development. In particular, a weak wind shear and favourable circulation field ­allowed the circular formation to generate quickly.Nonetheless, McKenzie said the answer was a rapid transition “to clean, affordable and reliable renewable energy and storage technologies”.
Serious weather authorities say it is too early to properly understand the impact of human activity on hurricanes.
The National Oceanic and ­Atmospheric Administration has published a detailed evaluation of the impact of climate change on hurricane strength and prevalence. NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory said it was premature to conclude that human activities — and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming — have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.
NOAA said records of past ­Atlantic tropical storm or hurricane numbers from 1878 to the present show a pronounced ­upward trend, which is also correlated with rising sea surface temperatures.
“However, the density of reporting ship traffic over the Atlantic was relatively sparse during the early decades of this record, such that if storms from the modern era (post 1965) had hypothetically ­occurred during those earlier decades, a substantial number would likely not have been directly ­observed by the ship-based ­‘observing network of opportunity’ ”, NOAA said.
“We find that, after adjusting for such an estimated number of missing storms, there is a small nominally positive upward trend in tropical storm occurrence from 1878-2006,” NOAA said.
“But statistical tests reveal that this trend is so small, relative to the variability in the series, that it is not significantly distinguishable from zero,” it said.
It found the rising trend in ­Atlantic tropical storm counts was almost entirely because of increases in storms of less than two days, which were particularly likely to have been overlooked in the ear­lier part of the record.
NOAA said the evidence for an upward trend was even weaker for hurricanes that made landfall in the US, which showed a slight negative trend beginning from 1900 or from the late 1800s.
“While major hurricanes show more evidence of a rising trend from the late 1800s, the major hurricane data are considered” unreliable, NOAA said.
“In short, the historical Atlantic hurricane record does not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced long-term increase.”
NOAA said human activities might have already caused changes that were not yet detectable because of the small magnitude of the changes or obser­vational limitations, or are not yet confidently modelled. But it said any impacts were more likely to be felt in decades to come.
NOAA said there were better than even odds that anthropo­genic warming over the next century would lead to an increase in the occurrence of very intense tropical cyclones in some basins.
This increase in intense storm occurrence was projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical cyclones, it said.
NOAA said anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century would probably cause tropical cyclones to have substantially higher rainfall rates than present-day ones, with a model-projected increase of about 10-15 per cent for rainfall rates averaged within about 100km of the storm centre.
“In summary, neither our model projections for the 21st century nor our analyses of trends in Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm counts over the past 120-plus years support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic,” NOAA said.
“One modelling study projects a large increase in Atlantic cate­gory 4-5 hurricanes over the 21st century, but we estimate that this increase may not be detectable until the latter half of the century,” it said.
“Therefore, we conclude that despite statistical correlations ­between SST (sea surface temperatures) and Atlantic hurricane ­activity in recent decades, it is premature to conclude that human activity — and particularly greenhouse warming — has already caused a detectable change in Atlantic hurricane activity.”
NOAA did say it was likely that climate warming would cause hurricanes in the coming century to be more intense globally and to have higher rainfall rates.
“In our view, there are better than even odds that the numbers of very intense (category 4 and 5) hurricanes will increase by a substantial fraction in some basins, while it is likely that the annual number of tropical storms globally will either decrease or remain ­essentially unchanged.”
It said the relatively conservative confidence levels attached to hurricane projections, and the lack of a claim of detectable anthropogenic influence at this time contrasted with the situation for other climate metrics, such as global mean temperature.
*******
Tens of Thousands Of Scientists Declare Climate Change A Hoax
Sean Adl-Tabatabai
September 2, 2016
A staggering 30,000 scientists have come forward confirming that man-made climate change is a hoax perpetuated by the elite in order to make money.
One of the experts is weather channel founder, John Coleman, who warns that huge fortunes are being made by man-made climate change proponents such as Al Gore.
Natural News reports:
In a recent interview with Climate Depot, Coleman said:
“Al Gore may emerge from the shadows to declare victory in the ‘global warming’ debate if Hillary Clinton moves into the White House. Yes, if that happens and the new climate regulations become the law of the land, they will be next to impossible to overturn for four to eight years.”
Climate change proponents remain undeterred in their mission, ignoring numerous recent scientific findings indicating that there has been no warming trend at all for nearly two decades.
Al Gore’s dire predictions of the melting of polar ice on a massive scale have proved to be completely false. In fact, in 2014 – a year that was touted as being “the hottest ever” in the Earth’s history – there were record amounts of ice reported in Antarctica, an increase in Arctic ice, and record snowfalls across the globe.
Debunking the “97 percent” lie
On top of those “inconvenient truths,” the White House’s assertion that 97 percent of scientists agree that global warming is real has been completely debunked. Several independently-researched examinations of the literature used to support the “97 percent” statement found that the conclusions were cherry-picked and misleading.
More objective surveys have revealed that there is a far greater diversity of opinion among scientists than the global warming crowd would like for you to believe.
From the National Review:
“A 2008 survey by two German scientists, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, found that a significant number of scientists were skeptical of the ability of existing global climate models to accurately predict global temperatures, precipitation, sea-level changes, or extreme weather events even over a decade; they were far more skeptical as the time horizon increased.”
Other mainstream news sources besides the National Review have also been courageous enough to speak out against the global warming propaganda – even the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed piece in 2015 challenging the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) pseudoscience being promulgated by global warming proponents.
And, of course, there are the more than 31,000 American scientists (to date) who have signed a petition challenging the climate change narrative and 9,029 of them hold PhDs in their respective fields. But hey, Al Gore and his cronies have also ignored that inconvenient truth, as well.
Many of those scientists who signed the petition were likely encouraged to speak out in favor of the truth after retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist John L. Casey revealed that solar cycles are largely responsible for warming periods on Earth – not human activity.
Al Gore and cronies continue getting richer from the global warming hoax
But the global warming crowd continues to push their agenda on the public while lining their pockets in the process. If you’re still inclined to believe what Al Gore has to say about global warming, please consider the fact that since he embarked on his crusade, his wealth has grown from $2 million in 2001 to $100 million in 2016 – largely due to investments in fake “green tech” companies and the effective embezzlement of numerous grants and loans.
You might want to take all of this information into serious consideration before casting your vote in the November election.
*******
Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation
Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.
By Christopher Booker
28 Nov 2009
A week after my colleague James Delingpole , on his Telegraph blog, coined the term "Climategate" to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.
The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.
Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.
Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.
Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the "hockey stick" were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann's supporters, calling themselves "the Hockey Team", and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.
The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC's scientific elite, including not just the "Hockey Team", such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC's 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore's ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself.
There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit 
and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That ), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.
They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.
This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.
But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand.
In each of these countries it has been possible for local scientists to compare the official temperature record with the original data on which it was supposedly based. In each case it is clear that the same trick has been played – to turn an essentially flat temperature chart into a graph which shows temperatures steadily rising. And in each case this manipulation was carried out under the influence of the CRU.
What is tragically evident from the Harry Read Me file is the picture it gives of the CRU scientists hopelessly at sea with the complex computer programmes they had devised to contort their data in the approved direction, more than once expressing their own desperation at how difficult it was to get the desired results.
The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.
Back in 2006, when the eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre's demolition of the "hockey stick", he excoriated the way in which this same "tightly knit group" of academics seemed only too keen to collaborate with each other and to "peer review" each other's papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang. In light of the latest revelations, it now seems even more evident that these men have been failing to uphold those principles which lie at the heart of genuine scientific enquiry and debate. Already one respected US climate scientist, Dr Eduardo Zorita, has called for Dr Mann and Dr Jones to be barred from any further participation in the IPCC. Even our own George Monbiot, horrified at finding how he has been betrayed by the supposed experts he has been revering and citing for so long, has called for Dr Jones to step down as head of the CRU.
The former Chancellor Lord (Nigel) Lawson, last week launching his new think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, rightly called for a proper independent inquiry into the maze of skulduggery revealed by the CRU leaks. But the inquiry mooted on Friday, possibly to be chaired by Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society – itself long a shameless propagandist for the warmist cause – is far from being what Lord Lawson had in mind. Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age.
*******
Also See:

Don't Believe The Crazy Predictions About Climate Change, Over Population, Et cetera!

22 August 2017
https://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2017/08/dont-believe-crazy-predictions-about.html
and
Al Gore Is Back Trying To Get Rich At Your Expense!
28 July 2017
and

Trump Takes U.S. Out Of Paris Climate Pact!

01 June 2017
and

When It Comes To Climate Change, Fake Science Baffles Brains!

09 March 2016
02 December 2015
and

Global Warming! Are You Sure?

19 March 2015

What Do You Know About Global Warming?

(Part 1)
21 November 2014
and
(Part 2)
27 April 2015

Climate Change! Global Warming! Think Again!

12 May 2014
and

Climategate II: Liers Are Still Pushing Global Warming! 

(Part 1)
04 November 2011
and 
(Part 2)
04 January 2014
and

Biodiversity Replaces Climate Change as the Weapon for Political Control

22 October 2010
and

Carbon Tax & the Global Warming Hoax

18 June 2010
https://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2010/06/carbon-tax-global-warming-hoax.html
and

Global cooling: Global warming myth-makers must now switch to "climate change"

16 January 2010
and

Climategate

24 November 2009

Global Warming - Fact or Fiction?