Nemo me impune lacessit

No one provokes me with impunity


No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Article 1, Section 9, Constitution of the United States

If this is the law of the land...why in a republic (little r) and as republicans, do we allow mere POLITICIANS to the right to use a "title of office" for the rest of their lives as if it were de facto a patent of nobility. Because, as republicans, this should NOT be the case...just saying...

The Vail Spot's Amazon Store

Chris Muir's Day by Day

Monday, December 28, 2009

ClimateGate: The Timeline

Here is a link to a .PDF formatted Timeline to ClimateGate. It's eye opening! For literally, the past 30 years, so called "climatologists" have been fraudulently altering temperature data. The scope is tremendous. Take a look at the documents and decide for yourself.

Here is an example of the fraud perpetrated by Jones and the IPCC:
JONES is the lead author of a Sep.90 paper [46] which concludes (from Eastern China and other data) there is no relevant urban heat island (UHI) effect (warmer temperatures in and around urban centres). However 3 months later, in Dec.90, his co-author, Wang, publishes another paper [47] (using the very same Eastern China data) but arrives at the opposite conclusion: that there is a significant UHI effect and temperature studies must this take into account to avoid skewing results in favour of warming. (Also see {WIGLEY 26.Nov.2009})

Aside from the fact until the contradictory conclusions are resolved, the papers can't be cited as favoring one position or the other another problem arose with the data set used. Both studies stated that the 84 stations were chosen based on their history such that "few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location or observation times".

In February 2007 mathematician Doug Keenan learned from MCINTYRE's blog that data was only available for 35 of them, and of those 35 at least half had substantial moves (eg 25 km). Keenan wrote to JONES asking about the source of location information of the other 49 stations. JONES replied that his co-author Wang had selected those stations in based on his “extensive knowledge of those networks”. So Keenan wrote to Wang, who replied that Zeng (a co-author of [47]) had "hard copies of station histories" but these were not provided to Keenan. However, the problem is that Zeng was also the co-author of a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) study which detailed station moves which noted that the “hard copies” to which Wang referred were not found.

Later in 2007 Keenan publishes "The fraud allegation against some climatic research of Wei-Chyung Wang" [49] setting out the matter and despite an investigation by University at Albany (where Wang is employed), and still the "hardcopy" data is not disclosed, nor was the university's investigation report.

In his paper Keenan notes that although JONES may not have known about the fraud in 1990, by 2001 he did due to subsequent papers JONES wrote which addressed the station moves and stated "those relocations substantially affected the measured temperatures" in direct contradiction to the 1990 paper. "Thus, by 2001, Jones must have known that the claims of Wang were not wholly true." Keenan wrote to JONES but received no reply. [49]

The 1990 Jones et al paper has been the major evidence presented by JONES in all of the IPCC reports to dismiss the influence of urban change on the temperature measurements, and also has been used as an excuse for the failure to mention most of the unequivocal evidence that such urban effects exist. The paper was even dragged out again for the 2007 IPCC report. [39] In fact determining the UHI is not complicated at all, for example see [61]: "Picking out the UHI in climatic temperature records - so easy a 6th grader can do it!"

On 31.Aug.2007 WIGLEY e-mailed JONES that Keenan is correct: "Seems to me that Keenan has a valid point. The statements in the papers that he quotes seem to be incorrect statements, and that someone ([Wang] at the very least) must have known at the time that they were incorrect." ([1188557698.txt] with more in [1241415427.txt])

No comments: