Perpetrators of Lies

[diehard]

In 1912, a respected paleontologist at the British Museum confirmed that bones found in a Piltdown quarry came from the “missing link” between apes and humans. Forty years later, the so-called Piltdown Man was proved to be a hoax. Thanks to purloined e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU), global warming is turning out to be the 21st-century equivalent of Piltdown Man.

E-mails between a small group of highly influential climate scientists at the center of the worldwide panic over global warming exposed multiple discussions among them concerning their manipulation of data and using various evasive tactics to avoid releasing the facts behind their ginned-up numbers to the public via Freedom of Information Act requests.

Here’s a rogue’s gallery of five major perpetrators of what’s turning out to be the biggest scientific hoax in modern history:

Geoff Jenkins, chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s first scientific group and self-described “frontman explaining climate change.” Jenkins admitted in 1996 to a “cunning plan” to feed fake temperature information to Nick Nuttall, head of media for the United Nations Environment program. At the time, Jenkins predicted temperatures in London would hit 113 degrees Fahrenheit and the Thames River would rise three feet even though 1996 was, in fact, cooler than 1995.

Phil Jones, director of the CRU, controlled two key databases that are the primary sources underlying claims by the United Nations and others of a global scientific “consensus” that catastrophic consequences will result from man-made global warming unless trillions of dollars are spent now to prevent it.

Jones e-mailed instructions to colleagues to “hide the decline” in temperatures and to pressure editors of academic journals to blackball the work of “climate skeptics.”
After claiming that the original climate data had been destroyed in the 1980s, Jones was caught urging his CRU colleagues to “delete as appropriate” data requested under Britain’s freedom of information laws.

Michael Mann, director of Penn State University’s Earth System Science Center, is one of the lead authors of the U.N.’s Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change report. Mann was the originator of the “hockey stick” graph that supposedly proved that the Earth’s temperature was at the highest level in recorded history. However, it also appeared to eliminate both the Medieval Warm Period, in which surface temperatures were higher than they are today, and Europe’s “Little Ice Age.”

In 2003, Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre exposed the flawed methodology behind Mann’s hockey stick. The recent e-mail leak led another scientist to quip: “Dr. Mann is in transition from Penn State to State Pen. We can only hope he does a better job with license plates.”
Mann has been a committee chairman for the National Academy of Sciences and a member of multiple NAS panels and committees.

James Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, whose records were also cited as evidence, second only to the CRU data, of incontrovertible man-made global warming. McIntyre also caught Hansen engaging in the same sort of statistical manipulation in which past temperatures were lowered and recent ones “adjusted” to convey the false impression that the nonexistent warming trend was accelerating. After trying to block McIntyre’s IP address, NASA was forced to back down from its claim that 1998 was the hottest year in U.S. history.

Al Gore, Former Vice President Al Gore is the author of “An Inconvenient Truth,” star of the 2006 Oscar-winning movie of the same name and winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his tireless efforts to limit economic development in industrialized countries with a cap-and-trade scheme. Many experts agree that such a system would increase food and energy prices, while wasting trillions of dollars on alternative energy sources (in which Gore is heavily invested). Gore’s case rests on the now-discredited theory that carbon dioxide emissions (which are increasing) are heating up the Earth’s atmosphere, even though actual global temperatures have been declining for at least a decade.

These five, though far from being the only ones, are among the top perpetrators of the Great Global Warming Hoax. They should never be taken seriously again.

Barbara F. Hollingsworth is The Examiner's local opinion editor.


Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Who_s-who-on-climate-frad-8625428-78462462.html#ixzz0fRg6YIAW

[Gopher4Life]

Putting the Global Warming issue aside, the most notable liar in America sits in the oval office.

[UpnorthGo4]

What do we have here? Frick is trying to hijack Frack's thread. Two of the founding members of the GopherHole Neocon Club apparently can't even get along with each other. What a shock that is.

[diehard]

What do we have here? Frick is trying to hijack Frack's thread. Two of the founding members of the GopherHole Neocon Club apparently can't even get along with each other. What a shock that is.

Great post! Your sense of humor should show itself more often! Only one problem. I'm not a Neocon. I am a Reagan Democrat/Libertarian (if there is any such thing). A political hybrid of sorts. Reagan was the first of the few R's I ever voted for. (If jammer was dead he'd be spinning in his corpse container right now. You know jammer, you can be a D and still be intelligent. Think about it.)

[diehard]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nEiLgbBGKVk&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nEiLgbBGKVk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[jamiche]

What do we have here? Frick is trying to hijack Frack's thread. Two of the founding members of the GopherHole Neocon Club apparently can't even get along with each other. What a shock that is.


To be more accurate, Up North, it's Frack and Tough Guy Jack going against each other. It's a tad ironic that Tough Guy Jack starts a thread about perpetuating lies when he's already been caught telling a few tall tales on the board. Frack falls asleep every night by repeating "Obama is a liar" a few hundred times. Oh well.

[Schnoodler]

oh...

I thought this was a thread on Fox News.

you climatologists go ahead and carry on...mybad.

[diehard]

"...he's already been caught telling a few tall tales on the board."

Please list. I know there was one sarcastic comment you lacked the sophistication to comprehend, but other otherwise? I have tried to dumb down my writing for those of your unique class of intelligentsia. Schnoodler gets it (may not agree, but he gets it), but then he is of another class entirely.

[Gopher4Life]

UpNorth,

Just pointing out that all these lying scientists weren't elected to office and granted public trust. On the other hand, Obama's two years of constant lies and half-truths are unforgivable.

[jamiche]

"...he's already been caught telling a few tall tales on the board."

Please list. I know there was one sarcastic comment you lacked the sophistication to comprehend, but other otherwise? I have tried to dumb down my writing for those of your unique class of intelligentsia. Schnoodler gets it (may not agree, but he gets it), but then he is of another class entirely.

IIRC, there have been three fibs that we know of. I don't remember the specifics but, well, I'm kind of limited. Thanks for dumbing down your writing. Part of the burden of being a great teacher, I suppose. Under different circumstances I can just imagine the soaring prose.

[The Big L]

Diehard - Way to not let science get in the way of politics. I am impressed!

Maybe that's a bit harsh, since (I feel) it is really American culture that shapes people into this general right vs. left pissing match.

It just saddens me that the actual scientific debate on global warming, where opinions fall on a wide spectrum, has been politicized and pushed to the far ends of said spectrum, with the result being the public hears mostly spin and lies, from both sides.

[diehard]

"Diehard - Way to not let junk science get in the way of politics. I am impressed!"

Fixed it for ya!

[diehard]

"Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fZ0SFTY4"

Don't you just hate these guys for making you look so very stupid?

open da link

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

[The Big L]

"Diehard - Way to not let junk science get in the way of politics. I am impressed!"

Fixed it for ya!

Yes my bad, I made a mistake in thinking a forum could be used for rational discussion, instead seeing who can yell the loudest.

The close-mindedness of this board...oof.

[diehard]

The 19 Most Recent Climategate Frauds. Almost funny that they are such bad liars and that anyone can believe this junk.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-234092--.html

[The Big L]

Don't you just hate these guys for making you look so very stupid?
:eek:

I'm not sure if I should laugh or just be shocked.

I'm not sure if you are attempting to mess with me, if what I'm trying to say is going completely over your head, or if you are just yelling so loud you can't head anyone else, so to speak. A combination maybe?

Hopefully the first, at least there would be some irony in the situation.

Maybe I should just tell you, to be safe? Fine: The only point I was trying to make when I came in here you are proving true with remarkable efficiency.

[The Big L]

I'll try and make this short, though I'm probably wasting my breath, but whatever...

The point I'm trying to make is this debate has turned very political, so much that the actual science debate is affected, and this troubles me. I commend Al Gore for his effort, but it defiantly has caused this issue to be polarizing, and worse, his viewpoints have come to represent THE global warming theory, and anyone who wants to talk about climate change gets thrown with him. I noticed you assumed that I am a "global warming believer/proponent" (whatever that means). I assume that what you think my beliefs are about the issue are much different from what I actually believe. But, just because I commented in response to you, I am part of that group. Don't you see the problem there?

Why exactly are we on teams here? Why two different groups, where the point is to discredit one another? I don't understand why someone like you wouldn't try and get as much information as possible on the subject before commenting on it? Why not look at all info available and decide for yourself? I say this because your posts have displayed a lack of understanding of the fundamentals of climate change, and the science, math, and logic that explains it. That isn't to say where your coming from is necessarily wrong, but you have quoted things that are scientifically and statistically wrong or hypocritical. It just shows you aren't looking at this issues with logic but with politics.

Climate change is real. The earth's temperature has been fluctuating as far back as we can measure, which is on the order of hundreds to thousands of years. And since the beginning of man we have had to adjust to climate change, with varying degrees of success. Now, it appears we are warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png). A lot of lay people are debating this all of the sudden, since temperatures have dropped recently, apparently ignoring the statistical problems of such a small sample size being used to describe the direction of a trend that has had periods of a thousand years. Though it shouldn't matter, because we are talking about climate change. The warming/cooling isn't even the actual debate of global warming.

No the actual debate is how much human activity is impacting climate change. We know we have some impact, some of it warming, some of it cooling. There are so many variables in the equation, and some of those variables we have a wide range of error on what we understand. So when we add up all those variables, some warming, some cooling, we get a very wide range of what the human impact is, ranging from negligible, to the other extreme which apparently represents all global warming believers (and, it does house most of the liberals who don't understand climate change, but are picking that side because it is opposite of the conservative opinion). The truth is, scientists may have hunches and theory's about where we are on the line, but these opinions will change (some unfortunate examples aside) as more is understood, quite different than the political debate. That's the problem. When one extreme looks to be less likely, politically it means the other one wins. It's black and white. It's absurd reasoning. The point is there are so many variables and details to this debate, which is why its so hard to precisely determine what the actual truth is, we just have a range. Just because we are not at one particular point doesn't mean the actual point isn't somewhere close by.

What's my opinion on global warming? Well, we need more research. If warming continues, we will eventually have to react, like we often have in history. Given the immobility of the world now, this will be tough, so we need to figure out not just how much human activity is contributing, but which human activities, so we can effectively curb the warming. I am particularly fond of the plan mapped out in the "Wedge" paper (Pacala), which is much more level headed than some of the 'build a mirror in the sky!'-type papers out there. That is just my opinion though.

That's all. I'll get out of here.

[diehard]

Big L, you have apparently missed the previous discussions. I have posted and review for the mentally impaired on this board the 420,000 years worth of Vostock Ice Core Samples and over a millions years of seabed data. Sorry you got caught up without benefit of the attempts of rational discussion here here. There is this HawkI guy who is really really stupid and your initial comment led me to believe you were HawkI or jammer material. You are right, for the most part this has become far to polictical and if you read the 19 Recently Uncovered Major Climategate Frauds, you will see the movement is discredited to the point they need to flush everything and start over. We should all be upset with that.

The question is why are these people trying to hard to make undenialbe climate change look like AGW the point of cheating real science?

If you are indeed reasonable and intelligent I will be very happy to exchange information with you on this, but beware idiots will intercede and they will not be treated kindly.

[Schnoodler]

Unfortunately our good friend diehard became a bandwagon jumper onner. Too bad, he once seemed capable of better.

[bga1]

I'll try and make this short, though I'm probably wasting my breath, but whatever...

The point I'm trying to make is this debate has turned very political, so much that the actual science debate is affected, and this troubles me. I commend Al Gore for his effort, but it defiantly has caused this issue to be polarizing, and worse, his viewpoints have come to represent THE global warming theory, and anyone who wants to talk about climate change gets thrown with him. I noticed you assumed that I am a "global warming believer/proponent" (whatever that means). I assume that what you think my beliefs are about the issue are much different from what I actually believe. But, just because I commented in response to you, I am part of that group. Don't you see the problem there?

Why exactly are we on teams here? Why two different groups, where the point is to discredit one another? I don't understand why someone like you wouldn't try and get as much information as possible on the subject before commenting on it? Why not look at all info available and decide for yourself? I say this because your posts have displayed a lack of understanding of the fundamentals of climate change, and the science, math, and logic that explains it. That isn't to say where your coming from is necessarily wrong, but you have quoted things that are scientifically and statistically wrong or hypocritical. It just shows you aren't looking at this issues with logic but with politics.

Climate change is real. The earth's temperature has been fluctuating as far back as we can measure, which is on the order of hundreds to thousands of years. And since the beginning of man we have had to adjust to climate change, with varying degrees of success. Now, it appears we are warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png). A lot of lay people are debating this all of the sudden, since temperatures have dropped recently, apparently ignoring the statistical problems of such a small sample size being used to describe the direction of a trend that has had periods of a thousand years. Though it shouldn't matter, because we are talking about climate change. The warming/cooling isn't even the actual debate of global warming.

No the actual debate is how much human activity is impacting climate change. We know we have some impact, some of it warming, some of it cooling. There are so many variables in the equation, and some of those variables we have a wide range of error on what we understand. So when we add up all those variables, some warming, some cooling, we get a very wide range of what the human impact is, ranging from negligible, to the other extreme which apparently represents all global warming believers (and, it does house most of the liberals who don't understand climate change, but are picking that side because it is opposite of the conservative opinion). The truth is, scientists may have hunches and theory's about where we are on the line, but these opinions will change (some unfortunate examples aside) as more is understood, quite different than the political debate. That's the problem. When one extreme looks to be less likely, politically it means the other one wins. It's black and white. It's absurd reasoning. The point is there are so many variables and details to this debate, which is why its so hard to precisely determine what the actual truth is, we just have a range. Just because we are not at one particular point doesn't mean the actual point isn't somewhere close by.

What's my opinion on global warming? Well, we need more research. If warming continues, we will eventually have to react, like we often have in history. Given the immobility of the world now, this will be tough, so we need to figure out not just how much human activity is contributing, but which human activities, so we can effectively curb the warming. I am particularly fond of the plan mapped out in the "Wedge" paper (Pacala), which is much more level headed than some of the 'build a mirror in the sky!'-type papers out there. That is just my opinion though.

That's all. I'll get out of here.

Big L - Great post. It would not be such an issue if the discussion over science were brought down to facts. Gore has been pushing this for a long time as proven science- which you agree it is not. Worse the liberals side has chosen this as a cause that -if they win- could push us headlong into greater global governance and permanently change the world economies for the worse. The global warming debate is simply being used as a massive global wealth redistribution program. At stake is massive intervention in business by the EPA, a huge backdoor tax hidden under the name of cap and trade and hundreds of billions that the US would pay annually into a global fund to "help underdeveloped nations fight global warming". I'm sure we can trust how that money woudl be used. ;)

Furthermore, because there is so much politically at stake there are huge dollars being floated around by the warmists and that is corrupting the science -obviously. Can you fault the conservative side for fighting this? In the recent SOTU, in the face of climategate, our President asserted that there was overwhelming evidence for global warming - a subtle lie because he knows full well that this will be taken as clear evidence for significant man made global warming. Such clear evidence does not exist.

[tikited]

Big L, you have apparently missed the previous discussions. I have posted and review for the mentally impaired on this board the 420,000 years worth of Vostock Ice Core Samples and over a millions years of seabed data. Sorry you got caught up without benefit of the attempts of rational discussion here here. There is this HawkI guy who is really really stupid and your initial comment led me to believe you were HawkI or jammer material. You are right, for the most part this has become far to polictical and if you read the 19 Recently Uncovered Major Climategate Frauds, you will see the movement is discredited to the point they need to flush everything and start over. We should all be upset with that.

The question is why are these people trying to hard to make undenialbe climate change look like AGW the point of cheating real science?

If you are indeed reasonable and intelligent I will be very happy to exchange information with you on this, but beware idiots will intercede and they will not be treated kindly.

Do you try to come off as a dick or is it just your personality? Just asking. You don't always have to take that route ya know.

[Gopher4Life]

>>...our President asserted that there was overwhelming evidence for global warming - a subtle lie because he knows full well that this will be taken as clear evidence for significant man made global warming. Such clear evidence does not exist.<<

Not subtle at all. This was a blatant lie. Our leader is a liar by nature plus he has an agenda to push down our throats.

[jamiche]

Do you try to come off as a dick or is it just your personality? Just asking. You don't always have to take that route ya know.

He's told us that he's the seventh largest employer in his county so he can write anything he wants.

[bga1]

>>...our President asserted that there was overwhelming evidence for global warming - a subtle lie because he knows full well that this will be taken as clear evidence for significant man made global warming. Such clear evidence does not exist.<<

Not subtle at all. This was a blatant lie. Our leader is a liar by nature plus he has an agenda to push down our throats.

G4L- not really. There has been some global warming- that's true. To what degree and by what cause is totally another question. Obama is very coy about how he uses words to allow for a double meaning.

[Gopher4Life]

>>There has been some global warming- that's true.<<

Not for the time period he points at.

>>Obama is very coy...<<

He's a "coy" liar and will continue until media and more citizens dare to challenge him.