Investigate data behind global-warming theory

» 53 Comments | Post a Comment

The climate science community has been shaken by the posting of thousands of e-mails and internal documents originating from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University, England. The inconvenient truths of the workings of this science community cast doubt on the integrity of some promoting catastrophic climate change.

Documents show a small cabal of climate scientists actively suppressed dissenting views, denied opposing views publication in journals they control and fostered manipulation of temperature data to conform to global warming dogma.

As a consequence, the Internet has multiple entries on the fallout from “climategate” at the Climate Research Unit, which is principal advisor to the United Nations’ Intergovern-mental Panel on Climate Change, to the U.S. Goddard Institute for Space Studies and to Al Gore’s climate advisor, James Hansen. Additionally, articles and editorials about the disclosures have appeared in the American and European press.

Charlottesville readers will recognize in these diverse documents two climatologists, formerly associated with the University of Virginia: professor Patrick Michaels and professor Michael Mann.

The alarmists’ basic premise for the need to combat climate change is based on:

The temperature record of the past 150 years.

The assumption that rises in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuel usage have caused an unusual rise in global temperatures.

Climate computer models masquerading as reliable predictors of future global climate states. The veracity of the temperature record is now in doubt; some claimed global temperature rises may have been fabricated and cooling trends suppressed.

Hosting the Copenhagen Climate Change conference, the Danish government, the IPCC and other climate change alarmists have been promoting this meeting as an essential, world-saving followup to the original Kyoto treaty.

It is proclaimed that failure to impose a new, worldwide energy rationing system and wealth redistribution scheme will provoke a global climate meltdown. A global government is promoted to administer the redistribution of wealth and energy. Government, industry, research institutions and the financial community are giddy with the prospects of a trillion-dollar-a-year funding source. Our own government is pushing “cap and trade” as necessary because “the science is settled.”

There may be ample reason now to believe there is “something rotten in the state of Denmark.”

The scientific community and the public deserve a full and open investigation of the data behind the conclusions made to support the global-warming theory.


View More: No tags are associated with this article
Not what you're looking for? Try our quick search:


Reader Reactions

Flag Comment Posted by Gordie on December 08, 2009 at 3:41 pm

Thank you Ari. Good statements.
I personally am not trying to understand or explain the process. All I am saying is the instruments, formula, calculus is all there for acturate measurements for a micro fraction of the rise in sea level.

Flag Comment Posted by Gordie on December 08, 2009 at 3:25 pm

anti knew you would come out of the wood work.

Tell me what part of 14 oil employees being in the Bush adminstration and their job, that is documented, that it was to discredit global warming. Explain them coming back as executives in the oil industry. That is what is normally called a bonus for a job well done.

anti you always seem to defend those that have a large cloud over them. Especially those that held a secret meeting with Cheney. Why is that? Are you a glutten for punishment? Do you feel you weren’t spanked enough as a child? What is you physcological problem?

Flag Comment Posted by Ari on December 08, 2009 at 3:19 pm

I have enjoyed reading this debate.  Here is what, I think, we can agree upon.

The “green house effect” is why there is life on earth.  It is the balance of greenhouse gases, clouds, reflectivity and natural occurrences that have regulated the temperature of our planet.

We know what gasses are “greenhouse” gases and we know that due to mankind’s behavior we have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the air substantially.

Right or wrong I believe that it is our duty to reduce our emissions because we know, historically that increasing greenhouse gases will increase the temperature of the earth.

Those who put ideology ahead of science are (IMHO) idiots. 

For those who are debating the science of measurement and change you need to understand Newtonian science (calculus) in order to understand how scientists are coming up with these measurements.  A dose of quantum mechanics/physics will also help.  Until you can meet the facts at this level you are just blowing hot air.

I do not mean to be disrespectful of the numerous and well considered opinions here.  I just want to separate ideology from science.

Flag Comment Posted by Foehammer on December 08, 2009 at 2:26 pm

Correction…that was 2000 years ago.

Flag Comment Posted by Foehammer on December 08, 2009 at 2:26 pm

Gordie, 200 years ago the Earth was 5 degrees warmer than it is today…it would appear that your statement about the fires is incorrect.

Flag Comment Posted by antiboyd on December 08, 2009 at 1:29 pm


You cannot possibly believe that scientists in this day in age cannot measure temperatures, sea levels, etc. Current technology allows experts to measure this, and more, to an extremely high level of precision.

Perhaps more cogent is arguing comparable historical data, which has to be often measured by inference, or by using less precise measurement capabilities of the time that they were measured.

Regardless, some facts are indisputable. The Earth—allowing for the idsreputable and dispicable behavior of no small or inconsequential number of perpetrators, is in a global warming trend. It is not the first such trend, nor the largest—and it is not universally distributed, either. As the Northern Hemisphere is warming, the Southern Hemisphere appears to be cooling. Continents are warming, but ocean temparatures are falling. Suffice it to say, these are long cycles, and hardly predictive.

So there you have it—arguing facts is futile, if not plain stupid. But forecasts, and predictions—that’s another story. Climatologists and the like differ on whether we are headed for disaster. There are compteting theories, bolstered by the same data, and different assumptions. Also, there is quite a bit of data selection going on, rightly and wrongly. Far from ‘settled science’ that there is a long-term trend in place, that we face a crisis, or that the Earth is unable to adjust (as it has repetedly) to man’s impact.

It is a conservative view, I argue, to steward our resources, both as a Nation, and as a member of the World Community. There is nothing to be gained by waste. There is no upside to polluting our streams,rivers, lakes, and oceans, nor to filling our air with poisons and toxins.

Focusing the debate on CO2 is a misdirection

Oil companies are a boogeyman, and I can see why they are a target of convenience.

We have long favored, through subsidy and other means, our energy industry. And the end result has been comparatively cheap energy, and profligate use of our natural resources. We do over-consume, and somehow we accept, generally, that this is what makes our economic system strong.

The recent, ongoing erosion of our country’s economic strength, no longer supports this approach. More ‘stuff’ is not better, nor does it lead to happiness. It is time for the subsidies to end.

We need to tax the use of energy, but in an intelligent way. Much of the world pays 2-3 times what we do for gasoline—not sure how that makes sense. We also need to look at ethanol-related subsidies. Using corn to produce ethanol is less green, less efficient, than say sugar cane—legislating this protection has unneccessarily raised the cost of corn syrup, feed corn, etc., to protect what, sugar beets? The entire web of “corporate welfare” that favors Big Oil, Big Agriculture, Big Finance, etc. needs to be re-examined. Unfortunately, a 100% corrupt Congress and equally sold-out Administration is the caretaker.

It is the corrupt, detailed elements of the Energy Bill—not “cap and trade” itself, which should be scrutinized, and killed. The stuff that cororate giants like GE have engineered into the bill, the stuff tha the AlGore has invested hundreds of millions in.

Both you and Gordie net to push the eject button on equally ridiculous assertions of grand conspiracies that just don’t exist—you’ve lost all sense of reality.

Flag Comment Posted by Gordie on December 08, 2009 at 12:01 pm

Saltydog, it is always you privilege to disagree. It just so happens I agree.
I don’t remember saying anything about the exact measurement to the moon, but if I did, I will agree that at any given point in time the exact distance to the moon is known and what it will be 24 hours from the first reading. Think about sending a rocket to the moon to land on a certain part at a given time. I think that clears up any issue about knowing the exact location.
But I must say this conversation is getting very primitive for me. What is common knowledge, that most everyone agrees on, you have disbeliefs. That is your privilege.

As far as temperature rise, the 5 degree rise by 2100 will probably destroy all wildlife on this planet by fires.

Maybe you should get out of your own back yard and look at the rest of the world. Start with this site.

Flag Comment Posted by Gordie on December 08, 2009 at 11:38 am

Since the end of the Bush administration, daily there are new stories what happened during that time period.
Since the letter was about Global Warming this information fits right into this subject.
Starting in 2001 employees of the oil industry were continually brought into the administration. They were all put into the enviromental department. The facts are coming forth that their roll was to counteract the Global Warming theories or better explained; to destroy any science that proved their was climate change and the oceans were heating.
All total it appears there were 14 such oil employees. Now that the Bush administration is gone, most of those same employees have returned to the oil industry in high paying jobs and some in executive positions.
Knowing this one needs to ask themselves why the oil industry? Why not the more evident pollutors in this country? What would the ocean warming have to do with oil?
The obvious answers to that question, is all the oil reservoirs on the east coast, west coast and the Gulf. Should others come to the conclusion that the ocean is warming, just what kind of laws would be passed. And would that prevent the oil industry from getting leases to obtain that oil? More then likely.
Working in and around most industries in this country, I personally have found that industry knows first hand what they are doing to the environment.
The industry knew far before anyone else what PCB’s would do to the health of those that came in contact or asbestos, cigarettes, strip mining, coal mining, etc,etc,etc. The industry needs to know these facts just to compeat and prosper.
Which leads to the big question. Just what does the oil industry know about drilling for oil in the ocean? Do they already know the facts and drilling of the oil or removing the oil from the ocean bed and the hazards? Do they already know that drilling for oil in the ocean beds heat up the ocean? Is the drilling for oil the real problem with the melting glaciers?
All of those questions need to be answered, especially since the oil industry has done so much to beat back the Global Warming of the oceans.
Another big question is? Did Al Gore know this? Is that why he went on his crusade on global warming?
The Government knows far in advance the problems of doing certain exploration. BUT big industry knows before the Government.

Flag Comment Posted by saltydog on December 08, 2009 at 11:07 am


After reading your links it seems thsat the volume of water is EVERYTHING. They are saying that the temperature rise is increasing the volume of water and making the ocean overflow onto low lying areas.

I disagree with their assertions that they can accurately measure the oceans volume of water.

Example: Take a 3 foot pool from walmart, fill it and let it stabilize at 80 degrees. measure the depth in the center of the still water to an exact measurement Say 30 inches. Now start pouring in ice cubes at one end, put a heat lamp at the other end, (sun)start throwing in sand, take water out of one side at different rates and times to simulate evaporation, and have kids throw basketballs at the sides of the pool to simulate waves.

Now look at the ruler. You can measure the highs and lows and make guesses, but you can never ever say with any certainty that the level has increased or decreased by the thickness of a business card. Now multiply that experiment by at least a trillion and factor in the volcanoes, gravitational pull of the moon, hurricanes tornados, etc and tell me with a strait face that somebody isn’t distorting the truth.

Second, you say they measured the exact distance to the moon. Well if you take two boulders and place them at opposite ends of a football field and then measure from equator to equator you could get an exact measurement. However, if both boulders were spinning the uneven surfaces would make it impossible to get an EXACT measurement except at a specific place and time. This number would however change at the rate of at least 23000 miles per hour since that is how fast the earth spins. Again, an impossible task to acomplish. They are educated guesses at best.

If the new proposals pass they believe (by their own addmission)they will be able to keep the earths increase in temperature to 4/10 of one degree by 2050. If they do nothing it will increase by a whopping 9/10 of a degree in the same time frame.

Seems like a lot of work for a half of one degree.

I can think of all kinds of ways to spend those trillions of dollars that will do more good than the damage 1/2 of one degree would cause.

Flag Comment Posted by Gordie on December 07, 2009 at 10:37 pm

saltydog what does the volume of water have to do with the sea level? Appears you did not understand what was written. Didn’t it say that the land is shifting as well as the water? Do you understand that if the ocean base rose up it would push the water onto land and what is now above sea level would be under water? Don’t you understand that global warming can heat up the oceans and cause this to happen?

You are right about the information being available since 1992 and every year the technology has improved that it is very very accurate. My original statement that you were contradicting was 2.8mm over a 10 year period. You claimed the technology was not good enough to measure 2 business card thickness. I think the information I provided does prove the technology is there to measure that small amount of rise.

I also said that it is unknown at this time what is fully causing Global Warming and how much man has to do with it.

Tell me how proud are you that you are being suckered by a bunch of Bush administration climate change people who are now working for the oil industry. Since you seem to trust multiple stories (even when they are from the same source) I would guess you would think nothing about a bunch of distortionists with a hidden agenda.

Post a Comment(Requires free registration)

  • Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
  • Respect others.
  • Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
  • See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Click here to post a comment.



Online Features
Special Reports
Restaurant Guide
Movie Times
Breaking News