BREAKING UPDATE: The Gate’s: When Shall I Open? Further?
Source: http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?2089.post
by Dennis J. Feindel
In a compiling list of events, this is about the “Gates” that have been open to the failings of the Alarmist Agenda. There are two definitions for the word “Gate”. The first is; ‘an opening for passage in a wall or structures.’ Of course, there’s more towards this side of the meaning. There’s another side to which is being used more apparently toward a specific happenstance. –gate is; ‘political scandal often involving the concealment of wrongdoing.’ Yes, according to my dictionary, the “-“is suppose to break the words. Climate-Gate, Africa-Gate, etc.. Obviously thru laziness or lack thereof, it isn’t being done. Not to be “picky” though, well too much…
Hence, this is what has happened in the Climate arena the last 3 or so months that’s been pulled out into the open. This pulling has been for the “biased Media”, they’re making sure it doesn’t reach the masses. Only in Britain is the media open to all subjects. They still follow “the Code” to which Journalist’s use and follow. For the only way to see both sides of an issue here in the U.S. is on the Internet. “Thank God” for otherwise, NOTHING would have come of this in time.
It all started on Nov. 17, 2009 when an undisclosed person(s) hacked into or copied emails from the CRU (Climate Research Unit) of East Anglia in Britain. With Copenhagen approaching, this person(s) knew about the corrupt activities being done between the CRU and other Agencies around the world. So they took it upon themselves to gather and release the emails in a Russian Web Site. Then they notified a number of People on the Web who might have interest of this information stating: Quoted from Web Site ‘The Vent’ 
“We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents.
Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.”
Hence, what I would say is the “Granddaddy “of all the “gates” in the Global Warming fiasco. The term as far as I can research was a suggestion by a WUWT poster called “Bulldust” coined the phrase at 3:52PM PST Nov 19th . As of now, we have at GWH.com 245 references to Climate-Gate. See the hacked files : here
My intentions are not to post them all for my intentions in this writing is to provide a “basic” history to “The Gate’s” since Climate-Gate took hold. As we all know Climate-Gate was to be the largest incident to pervade the Environmental Agenda… It’s an agenda because, Michael Crichton stated in his book “State of Fear”, quote: “Consensus is the business of politics. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science, It it’s science, it isn’t consensus.” If one has taken the time to investigate both sides, one “will” see where science is controlled by a numbered few. Hence, in these hacked emails you can start to see what has and is going on. In a basic “nut shell” that’s what Climate-Gate is and is No. 1 on the list.
No. 2 on this list, since the proverbial “Realist” ball got rolling, is “Glacier-Gate”. This story is told by the IPCC 4 Report that the glaciers in the Himalayas were likely going to disappear by the year 2035. Reported and claimed in the report by an Indian Dr. Syed Hasnain. Indian leading glaciologist Dr. Vijoy Raina disputed these claims. Christopher Booker did a great article telling about this second fiasco. Dr. Andrew Weaver, a Canadian Climatologist, also had an article to state his views about the IPCC.
UPDATE 3-2-2010: Here is the latest article on V.K.Raina in Forbes,India Feb. 22, 2010! It gives a very good history on Raina and what he did to cause “Glacier-Gate” to happen.
This was nothing but a report, not a peer reviewed paper and staunchly critiqued. In my research being done, I have begun to be “skeptical” of peer review especially in the Climate Research agenda of the Environmentalists. The repercussions of Glacier-Gate towards the “Chairman of the IPCC Dr. Rajendra Pachauri”. For Dr. Weaver speaks, as many others, for Pachauri’s resignation.
No.3 on the list is “Amazon-Gate”. James Delingpole does a phenomenal job on this article when it broke in January of 2010. In basic terms, this is what it’s about stated in Mr. Delingpole’s article.
Well, as it turns out this statement in the IPCC 4 Report, Chapter 13 of the Working Group II had come from a group called the WWF or World Wildlife Federation. Of course, this is a “report”, NOT a peer reviewed paper. This report was also done in conjunction with the IUCN, The International Union for Conservation of Nature. From here it continues to get even better. Two “expert Authors of the WWF report casually cited by the IPCC as part of its “robust peer review” process. Well “surprise”! They weren’t even Amazon specialists.
Donna LaFramboise from her blog ‘nofrakkingconsensus’ gives a very good lists of MORE non peer reviewed papers included in the IPCC 4th report.
According to Christopher Booker in his article, AmazonGate: New Evidence of The IPCC’s Failure Dr. North found the discrepancies of Amazon-Gate.
No. 4 is “AfricanGate”. This came up in early February of this year. EUReferendum by Richard does a superb job explaining Africa-Gate in this article called “And now for Africa”.
Richard states:
Applying to Africa as a whole, it tells us:
By 2020, in some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%. Agricultural production, including access to food, in many African countries is projected to be severely compromised. This would further adversely affect food security and exacerbate malnutrition.
The immediate source of this claim is the Working Group II report, Chapter 9 (Pg 448) on Africa, where we see the following:
In other countries, additional risks that could be exacerbated by climate change include greater erosion, deficiencies in yields from rain-fed agriculture of up to 50% during the 2000-2020 period, and reductions in crop growth period (Agoumi, 2003).
This is actually a more nuanced claim than is found in the Synthesis Report, but it is here that problems begin to be apparent, specifically in the “Agoumi” reference. It goes to this document:
Agoumi, A., 2003: Vulnerability of North African countries to climatic changes: adaptation and implementation strategies for climatic change. Developing Perspectives on Climate Change: Issues and Analysis from Developing Countries and Countries with Economies in Transition. IISD/Climate Change Knowledge Network, 14 pp.
To read the complete story, go to . EUReferendum
No. 5 on the list is Czech-Gate. This little known “Gate” was found by Lubos Motl. He states that the Czech’s oldest and “robust” station, despite the urban effects, has been censored! Here Lubos clearly states after finding the latest from his research.
“The links above present some evidence that this robust old station which, despite the urban effects, shows that there’s been no statistically significant warming in Prague since 1800 (and at most 0.5 °C or so in 200 years, and I haven’t subtracted any corrections for the intensification of Prague’s urban heat island which may be as much as 0.6 °C per century and which would probably revert the 200-year trend to a significant cooling!), has been deliberately censored from the GHCN data in some way, without a known scientific reason, and replaced by some gapped and strangely artificially adjusted data from the Prague International Airport (Ruzyn?, a Western suburb of the Czech capital).
A lot of seemingly problematic stuff to check.
It’s plausible that the Clementinum data actually show that there’s been no statistically significant warming in all of Central Europe for 200 years.”
So, another area that hasn’t been considered or eliminated for reasons only Climate Scientists can give that support the conclusions of the IPCC. Recommend reading the above article highly.
No. 6 coming up is a result of all the repercussions involved from the “Gates” and this man is taking all the heat. The Chairman of the IPCC, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri or “Pachauri-Gate”. He corrected “Glacier-Gate” very quickly but in doing so stating that the IPCC 4th Report is still an “accurate and credible” report, one that he will stand by. As time goes on, more and more pressure is being put upon Dr. Pachauri and more inaccuracies are being found. Another huge “Monkey” on his back is a company thats connected in AGW. TERI or The Energy Research Institute. Ajmer Singh done a very good article on Dr. Pachauri at the first of the this year called, Pachauri In a Spot As ClimateGate Hits TERI. Because of what you’ve read in this article, repercussions “are” being felt by the IPCC Chairman. Even countries are starting to go on their own and do their own Climate Research. The country India is doing just that. On Feb. 4, 2010, there was this article about India deciding to do their own AGW research.
As more and more people are coming around and wanting Pachauri’s resignation, James Delingpole says otherwise. In his article, “Why Pachauri must stay as Chairman of the IPCC”, Delingpole states:
“I don’t want Pachauri to give up his day job. He is performing a far, far, FAR greater service to the world where he is, chairing the IPCC, than he ever could scare little kiddies at parties or going back to his old job as a railway engineer”.
Here is one reason why he should stay. And here’s another. Yes that’s right. When Warmists as committed as environment editors Geoffrey Lean and Charles Clover are calling for Pachauri’s resignation with lines like this -
“If we are to have the best possible predictions about climate change, urgent decisions need to be taken. The agreeable but gaffe-prone Pachauri should accept it would be wise to walk now, so some heavy-hitters can step in and prevent a disastrous slide in the IPCC’s credibility. The sooner, the better”.
- then you just KNOW it must be the right thing for Pachauri to stay in post.”
Then Delingpole states that he’s being a little “flippant”. Say what? Most don’t know what that word means so here it is. My dictionary states as follows, “lacking proper respect or seriousness”. Ok, I was going to say, what’s up with James! But you have to know Delingpole style. Sometimes it is a wonder if he’s serious or not, IMO. Delingpole presents the British view among the Alarmists over there and does a very good job in doing so. My suggestion is that I hope you have already read Delingpole’s article above.’
The next “Gate” in line or No. 7 is “New Zealand-Gate”. Richard Treadgold, of the Climate Conservation Group, did some research with the online data at the Web Site of NIWA (National Institute of Water and Atmosphere). Mr. Treadgold found out that with their research and going over the Site data they found a different scenario. This is what’s stated in the article “Are we feeling warmer yet?”
It states:
There have been strident claims that New Zealand is warming. The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), among other organizations and scientists, allege that, along with the rest of the world, we have been heating up for over 100 years.
But now, a simple check of publicly-available information proves these claims wrong. In fact, New Zealand’s temperature has been remarkably stable for a century and a half. So what’s going on?
New Zealand’s National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA) is responsible for New Zealand’s National Climate Database. This database, available online, holds all New Zealand’s climate data, including temperature readings, since the 1850s. Anybody can go and get the data for free. That’s what we did, and we made our own graph.”
I recommend reading the results of the above article. On Dec. 20th, Richard Treadgold came out with this article, “ NIWA’S Obfuscation Unequivocal-It’s worse than we thought”. I’m not going to get into the article other than that Mr. Treadgold research opened up more than an a simple problem with data on a Web Site. A very good read.
Then another man, author of a number of books, Ian Wishart had an article in early February, “NWIA Reveals NZ Original Climate Data Missing”.
Mr. Wishart gave a very good summary on New Zealand-Gate. Its sounds like no data available to dispute. Wow, then no statement from the NWIA is valid, right? Simple and to the point. I recommend reading the details on this article to truly see how Alarmists state another false research and can’t back it up. This is what the “Gates” are all about.
No. 8 is “Scandinavia-Gate”. This “Gate” came about early in February of this year also. In this article by Thomas Vanheste “The Latest Exaggeration”, Mr. Vanheste states, Joop Oude complained about what the IPCC 4th Report had mentioned:
“In his last Assessment Report about the impacts of climate change shows that 55% of Netherlands is below sea level in this area and that 65% of the gross national product is produced. These figures are far too high. The Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) is only one fifth of the Netherlands below sea level and there are only 19% instead of 65% of the GDP generated.”
“Joop Oude Lohuis said the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency complained that the figures are coming institute. The IPCC has only two numbers added together: the surface is below sea level and the area is prone to flooding. Oude Lohuis acknowledges that the IPCC was wrong requires that 55% of the Dutch territory is below sea level. (The report can be found in Chapter 12, page 147) “
“Moreover, the figure that the Bureau of the IPCC has made in the area of flooding is high. The CBS is in third place on a total of more than half of the Netherlands. The CBS figures which part of the “potential flow pressure field on ‘real danger. “A better indicator,” says Oude Lohuis. But that he is “advancing knowledge”, because this calculation was not available at the time of writing the IPCC report.”
“In recent weeks several errors came to light of the IPCC. The most painful: the climate panel wrongly stated that it is very likely that the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 disappeared. The errors occur; the scientific consensus is not altering the picture of global warming and greenhouse gas emissions such an important cause. But give them the authority of the climate panel a blow.”
As another story unfolds, you can begin to see that research was an “assumed” agenda or intentionally put in towards the cause in the IPCC 4th Report. I recommend reading “Chapter 12, page 147 if you haven’t.
No. 9 is one directly connected from “Climate-Gate” is “China-Gate”. This was in the hacked emails. Fred Pearce from the guardian.com Web Site wrote this article on Feb. 1, 2010, called “Strange Case of Moving Weather Posts and a Scientist Under Siege”. China-Gate in a nut shell, so to speak, is about answering the question, “Why haven’t ALL of the Weather Stations been involved in China, included in the Temperature base figures on Global Temperatures”?
A very good question at that! One would believe that if weather stations have been there for a period of time, it would be an assumption that it would balance out the TOTAL global Temperature picture. I don’t feel you need to be a “rocket scientist” to see reasoning behind missing data. Especially when “cracks” are appearing around your latest “research Temp. Data”.
Rebecca Terrell gave this very good article on the latest of China-Gate: “ChinaGate: The Continuing ClimateGate Saga”.
Below gives the scenario how Phil Jones and Wei Chyung Wang thought the “Urban Areas” weren’t needed. Mathematician Doug Keenan thought otherwise.
“In 1990, scientists Phil Jones and Wei Chyung Wang published in the journal Nature concluding the “urban heat effect” has little to do with global warming. They used temperature data from a quickly urbanizing area of eastern China to illustrate their findings, specifically data from 84 weather stations with few significant moves. The issue of moves was important to prove how significantly urban sprawl affected temperature readings at originally outlying stations over time. The UN’s 2007 climate report, known as the Fourth Assessment Report or AR4, quoted the Nature paper saying that urban sprawl has little to do with rising global temperatures”.
It’s also been an issue here in the U.S. Temp. Data.
“Once AR4 made its debut, mathematician Doug Keenan questioned the legitimacy of the Jones/Wang research and accused the climate scientists of fraud. Of the 84 stations Jones and Wang referenced, Keenan discovered that 35 of them had substantial moves and the remaining 49 had no histories, so moves could not be determined. His findings were published in the peer-reviewed journal Energy & Environment.”
Rebecca Terrell states this in the closing of this article:
“The “Chinagate” scandal continues to undermine the credibility of AR4, already under fire over proven exaggerations about Himalayan glacier melt, debunked claims that The Netherlands are drowning, and false assertions the Amazon jungles are morphing into grasslands, all because of man-made global warming. As Keenan told The Guardian, “My interest in all this arises from concern about research integrity, rather than about global warming per se. Jones knew there were serious problems with the Chinese research, yet continued to rely upon the research in his work, including allowing it to be cited in the IPCC report.”
As you already know, she didn’t mention ALL of them to which is the reason I took the time to post these “Gates” for a common reference. I’m NOT saying I found them all! I hope I did for your convenience. If I did miss any, I’ll update the article. It wouldn’t surprise that another has happened this week.
The final one to mention is not one you hear much about. In fact I almost forgot it. Sorry about that, Auzzie’s! Its No. 10 on this list, and about the Country from “Down Under”, Australia or Australia-Gate! Again this one is about temperatures being presented by misleading claims. The area in question is a location called “Queensland State” or in the N.E quadrant of Australia. John O’Sullivan, a retired Lawyer, who’s been very active on the “Realists” side of the issue’s of AGW provided us with a very good report on the suspicious nature of the results in temperature towards this area. His article, “AustraliaGate: Now NASA Caught In Trick Over Aussie Climate Data”, gives a good rendition towards explaining thru charts why NASA got it “wrong” again. He states:
“In this article we look at the findings of two independent climate researchers who analyze climatic data used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to show warming of two degrees per century for Australia without explanation. We find that an earlier study by Willis Eschenbach in an article on What’s up with That (WUWT) is wholly substantiated by Kens Kingdom’s latest analysis of Ken Stewart at his ‘kenskingdom’ blog. As a consequence, absent any other justification from NASA, we must conclude that the NASA data has been fraudulently cooked.
GISS, based at Columbia University in New York City, has adjusted over a century’s worth of temperature records from the vast Queensland State (the Sunshine State) to reverse a cooling trend in one ground weather station and increase a warming trend in another to skew the overall data set.”
“Independent analysis by Aussie blogger Ken Stewart exposes a deplorable smoking gun of cynical manipulation of raw temperature data.
The process of adjusting raw data to create a “homogenized” final global temperature chart is standard practice by climatologists whose work is relied upon by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and world governments. This homogenization process of temperature data has fallen into disrepute since the Climategate scandal where scientists were proven to have unlawfully used a “trick” to fake climate data and then destroyed their calculations rendering it impossible for independent auditors to examine and justify the methodologies used.
Ken Stewart has his own take on these latest findings from Down Under: “Wow- when they adjust, they don’t muck around!”
UPDATE: 3-8-2010! We now have an No. 11 to my list, “Antarctic-Gate” ! In the latest from Chip Knappenberger (MasterResource) he produced an article about the fallacies in information from the IPCC 4th Report stating incorrect data on Antarctica. This a portion of what Mr. Knappenberger states:
In this MasterResource article, I have dug a bit deeper into what lies behind the IPCC’s “assessment” of the trends in Antarctic sea ice that is presented in its WGI Fourth Assessment Report. What I’ve uncovered clearly illustrates the difference between a “review” of the literature and an “assessment” of the literature. The former would include as much of the literature on the topic under consideration as possible, while the latter carefully selects from the literature to make a particular case. As such, the results of a “review” would be pretty constant across different assemblages of folks doing the reviewing, while the results of an “assessment” strongly depend on just who is doing the assessing. Case in point, compare the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report with the equally glossy and thick Assessment Report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). Both start with the same body of literature, and yet they arrive at completely different conclusions. [bold,italics are mine,Regards,Denny]
Chip goes on to state:
This is clearly evident in the section on recent sea ice trends in Antarctica. The IPCC dedicates part of one paragraph to the topic (IPCC AR4 Chapter 4, Section 4.4.2.2, p. 350-351) incorporating one reference (“Comiso (2003)”) which turns out to be a book chapter (i.e. not part of the peer-reviewed literature). The NIPCC on the other hand dedicates two full pages to the subject and incorporates 14 citations from the peer-reviewed literature (NIPCC, Chapter 4, Section 4.2.1, p 152–154).
UPDATE: 3-9-2010 Well, “as the World Turns” on should wonder what more is out there! This “Gate” is No. 12 on this list and is called, “GreenJobs-Gate”. Christopher Horner and Charlie Martin put out recent articles posted here at GWH.com. about Obama’a mis-using the country Spain’s Windmill Project as support to His agenda last year to support AGW. Most recently an FOI was implemented and Chris received emails on how the White House ensued on trying to defute George’s article. George Will, saw a report last June and made an article “Tilting At Green Windmills”. In it George states a Prof. Gabriel Calzada did a report stating windmills were NOT creating jobs, in fact they were losing 2.2 jobs with a country at 18.1 % unemployment. George states in his article:
“The Spanish professor is puzzled. Why, Gabriel Calzada wonders, is the U.S. president recommending that America emulate the Spanish model for creating “green jobs” in “alternative energy” even though Spain’s unemployment rate is 18.1 percent — more than double the European Union average — partly because of spending on such jobs?”
George states further:
“Calzada, 36, an economics professor at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, has produced a report that, if true, is inconvenient for the Obama administration’s green agenda, and for some budget assumptions that are dependent upon it.”
“Calzada says Spain’s torrential spending — no other nation has so aggressively supported production of electricity from renewable sources — on wind farms and other forms of alternative energy has indeed created jobs. But Calzada’s report concludes that they often are temporary and have received $752,000 to $800,000 each in subsidies — wind industry jobs cost even more, $1.4 million each. And each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation — sub-optimum in terms of economic efficiency — of capital. (European media regularly report “eco-corruption” leaving a “footprint of sleaze” — gaming the subsidy systems, profiteering from land sales for wind farms, etc.) Calzada says the creation of jobs in alternative energy has subtracted about 110,000 jobs elsewhere in Spain’s economy.”
Chris does a great job explaining the emails. Highly recommend reading His article!
Well, as the “ball” bounces down the old proverbial path, it’s showing the direction that’s rolling for the common person inquiring, asking the proper questions that needed to be asked. Even some of the “Biased” media are starting to bring up questions. Resignations are starting. Even two states, here in the U.S.A., Utah and Arizona are telling Washington that they are not going to abide to their wishes.
My intentions for this article were to gather, in its basic form, what’s been happening since “Climate-Gate”. This could be a book for James Delingpole stated: “I would like to finish my book on ClimateGate but more “Gates” keep coming”. Yes, to go further, this is what I call the “Snowball” effect. As you keep rolling it in snow, the larger it becomes! The “trick” is rolling the snow ball, when done, in the path you’ve already taken or “STOP” and create your snowman on the spot. The problem with Alarmists, they haven’t figuired that out or the snow is falling so fast that no matter where you go, the “Snowball” continues to get bigger…This is what, I feel, is going on right now! The proof is what you see and read before your very eyes and “they” are caught with a “big one”!
The Fallacies are tremendous and sad at the same time considering the whole purpose of this AGW fiasco is trying to do. I hope as time goes on, that the “True” Science hasn’t been injured beyond approach. People depend on Scientists to be forthright as they can be to give statements that can and will affect everyday living towards all that are on this Earth. GWH.com has “always” stated that temperatures are “slowing” in “small” increments going up. As a “Realist”, I hope you agree with me and this site GWH that there’s a LOT more to AGW than long range forecasting of temperatures. I’m referring like I’ve done many times, “It’s The Money”! And if you don’t agree with me, that’s Ok too. Oh, and if you like go here to see just a “small” portion of your tax dollars are going!
Follow it and you will not be disappointed, or you may be disgusted like I am…
Regards,
Dennis J. Feindel
Tags: Climategate, IPCC Fraud