Q&A/examinator, you did not need to assume that I was an AGW agnostic as that was my declared position, being one that was unconvinced by the current evidence but prepared to accept that new evidence might convince me one way or the other.

So what has changed?

Well the first thing that has changed is that there is no global warming, anthropogenic or otherwise.

The hockey stick has gone, tree ring proxies are gone, the NZ, Canadian and Russian data has been tampered with, the US instrument measurements were artificially “pre-loaded” by +0.5 degree C, the MWP has been “smoothed out” along with the LIA, the CRU’s database is described by one of their own programmers as “garbage”, the IPCC forecast errors were 7.7 times greater than the no-change modeling with 12.6 times less relative accuracy over longer term forecasts and their modeling does not correlate with actual measurements. The CRU systems are not ISO 9000 certified or audited. Of the evidence-based forecasting principles relevant to the IPCC scenarios, the IPCC violated 72 out of 89.

The computers used to “model” seem to be Linux based operating systems running formula based FORTRAN however; these are not “native FORTRAN compliers”, they run in “translator mode”. There is much duplicated source code, data access paths are suspect and outputs unreliable. The CRU programmers own “HARRY-READ-ME” files included in the released files point to a classic “garbage in-garbage out” system with extensive input data manipulation.

The peer review process has been violated and manipulated, consensus is none existent, even within the small band of those “scientists” authoring for the IPCC. On the wider front, in addition to the 30,000 plus dissenting scientists, 9,000 with PhD’s, we now have two open letters to de Boer from a further 8,000 dissenting scientists.

Phil Jones at CRU has now admitted that he has deleted some of the raw data upon which their forecasts were based; fortunately some countries still have theirs. No data, no case, because we can no longer validate or replicate their results, nice one Phil.

Continued:

Continued;

Hacking?
The released files contained some 12 years of emails, source code, graphs, data, reports and programmer notes. Firstly no system keeps 12 years of emails on-line, they are in archived files along with data backups, and hackers cannot access source code.

In addition, the BBC has now admitted that they received the files some five weeks before they were made public. It seems clear that the CRU is telling great big “porkies”, Phil Jones would have known five weeks earlier that these files had been lifted.

If Phil Jones deleted on-line data he would also have to destroy the backup files in archive. The source code can only have been “lifted” and then packaged, along with all other released data and files prior to that whole “zipped” file being stolen.

As for the much vaunted scientist, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and mastermind of its latest report in 2007. He is a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics he has no qualifications in climate science at all. Not to mention his astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations.

So why did Copenhagen fail? I have to speculate that every politician attending is very intelligent and that their advisers keep them well informed. They would be fully aware that in spite of much media censorship, that their electorates back home were seeing the corruption of AGW science. Not one of them was prepared to return to their countries with a Turkey for Christmas.

There are 26 well documented analogies of “impending disaster” scenarios between 1798 and 2008. All of them wrong. Economies have been damaged, societies disrupted and in the case of the “DDT Causes Cancer” fraud, some 2 million Africans died of malaria. Oh, I forgot to mention the name of a US Senator that, amongst other agencies, endorsed the forced withdrawal of DDT in Africa, Senator Al Gore!

AGW Agnostic? Not any more. You bought into it, you live with it.

Well said spindoc .. it needs to be said as often as possible now to the sheep of MSM we have in Australia and all the gullible fools who will not believe they have been hoaxed.

I expect the gullible ones who believed this foolish story of doom, will now be in "denial" that it is all fabricated. Now we'll see the true application of that word, how appropriate.

Fabricated by groups to get funding, like Patchauri from various organisations, like CRU (and organizations even in Australia) for grants, like some people like Al Gore to get people to invest in his schemes. Some of the foolish went along with this scientific fraud to be fashionable, like the organizations who have nothing to do with climate but got behind the "consensus".

In the end all the accusations have been pointed at "Big Oil" and all along it has been "Big Green" getting the benefits, nice misdirection there.

It will take time to completely unravel, but who could ever trust a climate scientist again? No one will want to study or be in the field will they, and those in it will be trying to spin the situation as respect and funding starts to ebb away, and suspicion turns on them. Cue Q&A.

Ok spindoc, apparently it’s my cue.

You say “there is no global warming, anthropogenic or otherwise”

Could you please explain what you mean or define as global warming? For example, how many years of data do we have to have before we can say whether it’s warming or cooling?

You say “the hockey stick has gone”

Which hockey stick are you talking about?

• O2005 - Oerlemans

• PS2004 – Pollack & Smerdon

• JBB-1998 – Jones et al

• ECS2002 – Esper et al

• MBH1999 – Mann et al

• RMO-2005 – Rutherford et al

• BOS-2001 – Briffa

• MSH-2005 – Moberg et al

• MJ2003 – Mann & Jones

• DWJ2006 – D’Arrigo

• B2000 – Briffa

• HCA – 2006

Or do you mean them all?

You also say “tree ring proxies are gone”

Which tree ring proxy are you referring to?

What about other proxy reconstructions – corals, stalagmites, ice cores, sediments, micro-flora, soil bore-logs, etc – are they gone too?

Ok spindoc, you go on to say “the NZ, Canadian and Russian data has been tampered with”

I know about New Zealand. You (or someone) base this claim on a ‘scoop’ from the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (fancy name) – a group of global warming sceptics who themselves got caught tampering with the data for NZ.

Cont’d

Cont’d

Spindoc, the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition made the NZ warming trend ‘go away’. They did this by treating measurements from different sites as if they came from the same site (stupid, dumb and fraudulent). They also claim that New Zealand’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research wouldn’t explain how they adjust the data for site changes. That is simply untrue, another lie. It's all there for anyone to see – did you check yourself, spindoc? Or are you just parroting the ‘denialosphere’ again?

I also know about the Russian data-set spindoc. Like that from NZ, it appears you are referring to another ‘denialosphere’ story (touted by the UK novelist/journalist James Delingpole). This one based on a right-wing Moscow think tank (Institute of Economic Analysis) ‘revelation’. The IEA were trying to make a claim against AGW before Copenhagen (like the NZCSC) and it was they themselves who tampered with the data-set.

You have said that you prefer to look at the data yourself spindoc. Why didn’t you check the Russian or the New Zealand data-sets before repeating guff that is posted all over the ‘denialosphere’?

I don’t know anything about Canadian tampering of climate data. Please, can you point or link me to your source of this information? Don’t bother if it’s from a ‘denialist’ blog site or media shock-jock.

You say Phil Jones “admitted that he has deleted some of the raw data upon which their forecasts were based”. This is also untrue (or did you too take this out of context) – raw data cannot be deleted, it is archived and backed up.

Actually spindoc, most of what you are saying does appear to be ‘lifted’ from anti-AGW blog sites. If you ever were a real sceptic (or genuine agnostic) you would have checked the facts yourself, from primary sources – you obviously haven’t. If you had, you would know that you have been had.

Q&A, this is possibly your worst post yet. You failed to address any of the key criticisms; you “nibbled” round the edges before resorting to trashing sources as “denialosphere”.

Let’s try another approach.

Firstly, you are probably the best informed on this topic, you have better access to research, you study this topic and you are supported by like minded academics.

Secondly, the criticisms leveled at the IPCC, CRU, Met Office, Pen State and the IPCC processes and predictions, are NOT my criticisms. I am simply tabling concerns that have been reported in the international public domain over the past few weeks.

You are already fully aware of all these criticisms, so why play dumb and bash the messenger?

These criticisms are yet to be proved however, they do paint a dramatically different picture of what we have been led to believe is good, clean and robust science.

You have a splendid opportunity to use your skills, knowledge and research to refute these criticisms. You also have a clean slate since the pre-Copenhagen/Climategate scenario is gone.

Could I suggest that you start with such topics as Consensus, Peer Review Process, Transparency, Data Integrity, Modeling Methodology and Scientific Credentials.

After that we can discuss how you propose validating the IPCC’s warming claims? That should be good.

If you can’t answer the questions, that’s OK, the pointy heads in the US are already crawling over the data, code, notes and reports. The US DOE has issued a “Litigation Hold Notice” and the Lawyers, Congressional Hearings and Grand Juries can be expected to answer ALL outstanding scientific questions for us, that’s because the US has invested $millions and they now want a business case for their investment.