The deniers are desperate

Just to show how desperately the climate change deniers are grasping at straws.This is the clearest account I’ve seen of the great tree ring data scandal from East Anglia, by the university’s Royal Society Research Professor.

  • Alanbrooke

    UEA professor – hardly a neutral observor.

  • Frustrated Democrat

    There are few people who deny that the climate is changing. The discussion is on the causes natural or man made? As far as I can see there is no firm evidence in either direction only extrapolation and conjecture.

    Any attenpt to stifle debate or use ‘tricks’ is therefore an indication of the lack of evidence and the need to bolster the case. A good case would stand up easily.

    The jury is still out for me.

  • igor

    Ah Brian…we are all deniers now. Heretics. Fools not to heed our betters.

    Read the ‘read me harry’ text and tell me what you think of the quality of data that CRU have been working with?

    Have you actually read the exchanges and the emails and not just the media reports on them?

  • Guest

    I just want someone to explain how humans are the cause when the same climate change is happening on mars.

  • Garza

    Funny how the above posts do not address on what the link said, they just post random statements on why man-made climate change is false (apart from FD).

    Any statements on the links itself guys?

    Here’s another one.

    I find the majority of man-made climate change deniers also deny evolution. Both rely on a conspiracy that the scientists are lying and covering up the truth from the public.

  • igor

    Ah Graza …. I have read the link but I have read a lot more besides including some of the emails and the harry read me text. And I have concluded that the data on which CRU relies is suspect.

    I don’t think there’s a conspiracy, just a complete cock up. The original data was destroyed. What’s left are tables created from the data by persons unknown and for purposes unknown. Its impossible to verify the quality of translation and there seems to be little documentation. Furthermore it seems that there is also lots of data that has been used to construct the model but it is unlabelled – so they don’t now understand where it fits in and are trying to retrofit it into the model.

    Do you see the problem here?

    Now how is my post at 3 a random statement?

  • Jud

    Let’s see.
    Tree ring data is used for a 1000 year temperature reconstruction. The tree ring proxy shows a drop after 1960 so actual readings are used instead.

    Note that the actual readings are not overlaid on the chart – they replace the tree ring drop (it is removed entirely).
    This is the ‘trick’ referred to in the emails.

    A guy from the department that did it says it is ok, so we’re good.

    Let me ask you Brian – how can we be confident the previous record is reliable if the recent tree ring readings diverge from actual readings.

    I would have thought further analysis would be prudent, but as the raw data appears to be missing that is not an option.

    For the record I believe in evolution; I think the earth is round and was formed at least 4 billion years ago; JFK was shot by a lone gunman; men have walked on the moon; the rich should be taxed heavily to pay for infrastructure, education and healthcare, George Bush is an idiot, and we should be making massive investment in the third world to fight poverty and disease.

    Unlike human driven climate change I have seen sufficient evidence for all of the above.

  • Garza

    Heres a nice link providing both sides of the argument.

  • The Devil

    Christ does some of the posting on this thread not blantantly show how thick some people are….

    “the jury is still out for me”

    “climate change on Mars”

    Millions of scientific hous poured into climate monitoring, the finest minds that we have on this planet who specialize in climate and habitat each and everyone of them publicly state that mankind is a factor in global warming but the main factor in climate change!

    the deniers can’t find one “NOT ONE” world recognized scientist with any credibility worth a damn who claims that climate change is not human driven….

    The climate won’t change tonight or tomorrow but in our childrens life-time probably and our grandchildrens absolutely… you selfish selfish bastards…. just grow up and take responsibility for your actions not hide behind any excuse that’s going.

    Smoking is good for you (ignore those silly doctors they make up those scares for grants)

    AIDS is only for Gays

    Asbestos is a miraculous product every home needs it…. those scientists will tell us it’s bad for us or something

    Thalidomide, Opium, Fatty Foods, Lead, Mercury

    The list goes on and on… but it’s okay the Jury’s still out… there aint enough evidence

  • Dread Cthulhu

    So, in layman’s terms, the graph is a bait and switch, relying on one basis for the bulk of the data and substituting another, more “convenient” basis to paper over an inconvenient result, i.e. the graph’s basis was switched, a “trick” to “hide the decline.” The “scientists,” rather than operate on an “apples to apples” basis in the graph, picked data that fit their desired outcome.

  • chris

    I don’t know Professor of Meteorology at MIT, he may be ONE

  • frustrtaed democrat

    The Devil

    Give us the exact evidence that PROVES your statements that there is a definite link between all climate change and mankind’s activities. Grapes are widely believed to have grown in the North of England not so long ago in the earth’s history was that global warming.

    No guesswork, extrapolation, tricks or bluster just as Gradgrind said ‘facts give me facts’.

    Remember all those scientists that said all the computers would crash at midnight 1999 are those similar to the ones you are relying on?

    I have an mind that is open to real facts from either side.

  • The Devil

    Ah Chris at least try and get someone who doesn’t have heavy links to EXXON

    or for that matter 3M …. both have been caught trying to bribe people in the science world for years

  • Garza

    The Devil that is what as always confused me.

    If man-made climate change is false.

    Why do oil companies have climatologists on their payroll if their product as no effect on the climate? Seems like a waste of money to me.

  • chris
  • igor

    “each and everyone of them”

    errr … they don’t

    one of the problem is that any time any of them do challenge they are attacked by people like you.

  • “Deniers” eh?

    Does that make you a Global Warming Alarmist then?

  • Coll Ciotach

    It is not what has happened in the last ten years that is of interest, the real con is the losing of the 350 years of warming between 1000 and 1350AD. Te present cycle is near its zenith. After this El Nino, and accelerating in the middle of the next decade. By 2015 the earth may well be back on the way to normality whatever that is and on a downward plunge to 19th Century levels.

    Here is a prediction for you – massive snowfall throughout Europe as the El Nino effect hits. The sunspot activity to increase engendering a cooling of the Earth.

  • Brian MacAodh


  • igor

  • @the devil
    “the finest minds that we have on this planet who specialize in climate”

    This not true. The geosciences have attracted mediocre students, and a few bright outsiders.