Rep. Issa: Obama’s refusal to investigate ‘Climategate’ emails is ‘unconscionable’

The University of East Anglia is located in the UK. That is not Obama's jurisdiction. The University has requested an independent reviewer to come in and address the allegations.

Here is wikipedia's page on Muir Russell if you want to read more about his experience.

 

our government ha endorsed the lies no matter what country they come from. I think we need to know the truth of whats going on since it gets shoved down our throats in the form of new laws, and all the garbage we see on tv and news papers etc.

 

Man made climate change has been debunked. The end

 

It seems like you guys claim to already know the truth so what will an investigation by Obama accomplish for you?

I for one am interested in the results of Mr. Russell's investigation to see if there was any manipulation of data or inappropriate activities at CRU. Reading out of context quotes from potentially fraudulent e-mails does raise suspicion but are far from conclusive. Some of the e-mails have been confirmed as real and the authors have provided their claims of the context behind those e-mails. An independent investigation is the right step forward.

 

Sorry, but an outright admission of destroyed and manipulated data seals the deal for me. What else is there to know?

Not to mention their process is so flawed (statistically and scientifically) as to be funny.

Statistically: Extrapolating the totality of Earth's temperature patterns from a statistically insignificant sample (the no. of years we've been able to measure vs. the total years of Earth). Not only that, but they messed around with the data they did have.

Scientifically: Not taking into account the activity of our one and only heat source, the Sun. That would seem important, eh?

Face it folks: These are power-hungry, morally-bankrupt charlatans, that play us for moronic sheeple. I'm not playing anymore.

 

Here ya go.

 

The man made climate change hoax is a political tool to redistribute America's wealth. Nothing more nothing less. and those who support it are wanting America's wealth redistributed or complete fools. While I doubt the latter I most likely support the former.

 

The e-mails have been taken to suggest this by critics and I think an independent investigation will see whether that is true or not. The university is taking the necessary steps to determine whether there was improper activity and if there was, to ensure it doesn't happen again. Their reputation as an academic institution is at stake.

We've been collecting direct temperature data (not tree rings and ice cores) since the late 1800s. That is over a century of data. There are currently over 3000 meteorological stations around the world reporting monthly data to GISTEMP, NASA's database of global surface temperature that is independent of CRU. I'm not sure how much data you need to say it is statistically significant.

I've pointed this out to you before in a different thread but NASA does take into account the warming and cooling trends from Sun activity which indicates that the sun is currently in the cooling part of its cycle. See figure 4 on the link.

 

People more powerful than these folks--folks such as Obama and senator Barbara Boxer--are choosing to ignore the content of the data, and are blindly backing up the discredited scientists. I find this more disturbing than the college's reaction, and the consequences will be far more dire.

Well, if a scientist says the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and yet insists that 100 years is statistically significant, then I'm going to wonder about his agenda.

But since we threw out the original data, and we messed with the data we have, then who knows? Besides...there are many at NASA who discredit this global warm, er, climate change scam, yet their voices are squelched...


Oh, and for your entertainment...here's an article from 35 years ago, spelling doom...from freezing. They were sure they were right then, too:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/03/climate-science-gore-intelligent-technology-sutton.html

From the article:

I bet these "scientists" really hate this Gary Sutton guy.

 

I don't think it is being ignored. The right people are investigating it.

Even if you throw out all CRU data and analysis, there is still plenty of other sources of data analysis to support global warming with NASA's Goddard Earth Sciences being the most prominent one.

If our politicians made changes in policy according to the claims of conspiracy theorists, we would be in real trouble. The e-mails that have been confirmed suggest inappropriate activity may have been happening at CRU. That does not challenge data that we have about climate change outside of CRU.

So you don't think we can make any statements about global temperature until we have another billion years of data? It might be a little too late then. The larger trends are estimated by ice cores and tree rings.

Ummm huh? NASA does take into consideration solar influences on global temperature. NASA is independent of CRU. If CRU throws out data (which is yet to be determined), that does not mean that NASA throws out data. They are two different organizations with their own datasets and analyses.

 

This scam is out in the open - to totally ignore it as the president is doing is irresponsible at best.

The president's desire to appear like 'Mr Nice Guy' to the world is going to backfire both at home and abroad.

 

Yup, the sun is responsible for a good deal of our climate... and we have no control over the sun.

 

>Originally Posted by rbell
>Scientifically: Not taking into account the activity of our one and only heat source, the Sun.

Not correct. Maybe half the net heat contained in the earth is from internal radioactivity.

This internal heat is conducted to the surface but not uniformly. There are hot spots and cool areas due to the circulation of the melted internal stuff, the nature and thickness of the crust, and the nature of water.

Common sense should indicate that heat from 1000 feet under water will be transferred to the surface much faster than heat from 1000 feet under solid rock. This is why the oceans can be warming while the land is cooling.

We know more about the surface of the moon and Mars than we do about the ocean floor. Some say <G> that the current (pun intended) changes are due to increased underwater volcanic activity and I buy into this hypothesis.

 

I didn't pay any attention to the folks who said we were entering an Ice Age back in the 70's, or the folks who claimed Global Warming in the 90's.

As Christians, we should know better, we have a promise from God concerning the climate.

Gen 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.
22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

The Lord is in charge. Man cannot ruin the earth if he tried, God will prevent it even if it were possible. There is nothing to worry about concerning climate.

I don't know if we can hold Obama accountable for this, he is just one among many millions of Americans who believed these doomsday pseudo-scientists. This baloney was going on for years before Obama came on the scene. Yes, it's about money, it's always about money. But it is more than that, it is also about man trusting in his own knowledge. The liberals especially worship human knowledge and wisdom. If somebody has a PhD in front of their name, the liberals will believe anything they say. But it is not just liberals, many conservatives do the same.

Even if Obama had prior knowledge that global warming is a hoax, I doubt he would have revealed it. A big part of his support came from environmentalists. You don't want to upset your support.

 

Agreed. I think part of the plateauing in global temperatures that we have been experiencing for the last decade is because the sun is in a cooling phase in its cycle, as indicated by NASA's solar irradiation data, and masking some of the human contribution to global warming that has only increased.

Both CRU and NASA Goddard both report that the temperatures have been plateauing. One of the alleged e-mails currently under discussion was of a member of CRU frustrated that there wasn't more warming. His/her personal frustration with the data did not affect the CRU reports over the past decade that has indicated a plateau in temperature, an indication of letting objective data speak over your subjective opinion.

I would link to their site to show you the chart, but it has been bombarded with too much traffic because of this controversy.

 

So there is a plateauing in global warming...

But that is masking human contribution to global warming...

IOW - there is human warning of the global but we can't measure it because the global temperature is plateauing?

And I am the one that is giving subjective opinion?

 

There is plateauing in global temperature in the last decade (figure 1). They are still 10 of the hottest years on record, but the rate of increase has plateaued. The contribution of the sun (figure 4) to global temperature has been decreasing over the same period, in line with that plateau. Without that effect from the sun, the global temperature would be higher.

It is like the seasonal contribution to employment. If you take the seasonal component out, the unemployment rate is higher than the raw unemployment rate. That is why we use seasonally adjusted unemployment rates.