UPDATE: CRU apparently been hacked – ..AGW HOAX revealed...

[Air Force Met]

I think the best example are the unanswered replies to threads on this board that suggested Global Warming was a hoax but when the thread was pursued and replies showed information that wasn't liked by the original posters the replies went unanswered.

I think the fact that this thread is popular - yet those same other threads still exist and are still unanswered says all you need to know. That, to me, is more scandalous than anything the anti movement can contrive.


if you look at the other threads they went "100%" unanswered.

I and likely many skeptics will just drop it for fear of being banned for "getting political." It is almost impossible to counter AGW claims without "getting political" because the AGW movement IS political and NOT science.

I, for one, don't care anymore [if I'm banned]. Truth is truth and the emails show the agenda and bias. True science has no bias. A similar thing was occurring back in the 20's and 30's in physics. People not wanting to do pure science but protect their egos.

Bottom line is this: It is political. GW...historically...has NEVER been detrimental to mankind. NEVER. So let's assume it is happening [which it isn't]. People ought to rejoice. Historically mankind has ALWAYS suffered during a cool earth and prospered during a warmer one. LIA almost wiped out Europe. The cooling period between RWP and MWP plummeted us into the dark ages. Fact. Fact. Fact.

So...it is a political agenda being run by environmentalists...who truth be known would have us living in the dark ages (the more extreme wing of them). Cap and trade will DEVASTATE our economy and that is the agenda...because somehow it is not fair that we are prosperous and other places aren't...so therefore we can't be.

Here is another FACT: China already had more emissions than US...and is increasing emissions 9X more per year. India is right on there heals. So...why are WE the bad guys?

AGENDA. AGENDA. AGENDA.

This is like Battlestar Galactica (reimagined series). This has all happened before and it will all happen again. The climate changes. It is extremely arrogant to think we deserve or will have the same climate globally as our grandparents. AGW people remind me of those who lived in Europe in the 13th century. When the glaciers started moving down the mountains...they thought they were the possessed. They didn't understand that things change.

Oh...BTW...those very same glaciers are the ones we are worried about melting today. They were not even there during the MWP. But somehow today...the AGW crowd thinks its Armageddon that they are deciding to retreat back to where they were pre-LIA. And when they do finally retreat...it will be an archaeological gold mine because of all the villages that were buried pre-LIA.

Happy Thanksgiving.

[Air Force Met]

Here is something else before I go eat turkey and watch the Cowboys...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/#more-13215

Uh, oh – raw data in New Zealand tells a different story than the “official” one.

The New Zealand Government’s chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn’t there.

The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain’s CRU climate research centre.

In New Zealand’s case, the figures published on NIWA’s [the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research] website suggest a strong warming trend in New Zealand over the past century:



From NIWA’s web site — Figure 7: Mean annual temperature over New Zealand, from 1853 to 2008 inclusive, based on between 2 (from 1853) and 7 (from 1908) long-term station records. The blue and red bars show annual differences from the 1971 – 2000 average, the solid black line is a smoothed time series, and the dotted [straight] line is the linear trend over 1909 to 2008 (0.92°C/100 years).

But analysis of the raw climate data from the same temperature stations has just turned up a very different result:



Gone is the relentless rising temperature trend, and instead there appears to have been a much smaller growth in warming, consistent with the warming up of the planet after the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850.

The revelations are published today in a news alert from The Climate Science Coalition of NZ:

Straight away you can see there’s no slope—either up or down. The temperatures are remarkably constant way back to the 1850s. Of course, the temperature still varies from year to year, but the trend stays level—statistically insignificant at 0.06°C per century since 1850.

Putting these two graphs side by side, you can see huge differences. What is going on?

Why does NIWA’s graph show strong warming, but graphing their own raw data looks completely different? Their graph shows warming, but the actual temperature readings show none whatsoever!

Have the readings in the official NIWA graph been adjusted?

It is relatively easy to find out. We compared raw data for each station (from NIWA’s web site) with the adjusted official data, which we obtained from one of Dr Salinger’s colleagues.

Requests for this information from Dr Salinger himself over the years, by different scientists, have long gone unanswered, but now we might discover the truth.

Proof of man-made warming

What did we find? First, the station histories are unremarkable. There are no reasons for any large corrections. But we were astonished to find that strong adjustments have indeed been made.

About half the adjustments actually created a warming trend where none existed; the other half greatly exaggerated existing warming. All the adjustments increased or even created a warming trend, with only one (Dunedin) going the other way and slightly reducing the original trend.

The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as documented below. There is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments and to date Dr Salinger and NIWA have not revealed why they did this.

One station, Hokitika, had its early temperatures reduced by a huge 1.3°C, creating strong warming from a mild cooling, yet there’s no apparent reason for it.

We have discovered that the warming in New Zealand over the past 156 years was indeed man-made, but it had nothing to do with emissions of CO2—it was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature. It’s a disgrace.

NIWA claim their official graph reveals a rising trend of 0.92ºC per century, which means (they claim) we warmed more than the rest of the globe, for according to the IPCC, global warming over the 20th century was only about 0.6°C.

NIWA’s David Wratt has told Investigate magazine this afternoon his organization denies faking temperature data and he claims NIWA has a good explanation for adjusting the temperature data upward. Wratt says NIWA is drafting a media response for release later this afternoon which will explain why they altered the raw data.

“Do you agree it might look bad in the wake of the CRU scandal?”

“No, no,” replied Wratt before hitting out at the Climate Science Coalition and accusing them of “misleading” people about the temperature adjustments.

Manipulation of raw data is at the heart of recent claims of corrupt scientific practice in climate science, with CRU’s Phil Jones recently claiming old temperature records collected by his organization were “destroyed” or “lost”, meaning researchers can now only access manipulated data.

[Air Force Met]

I think the best example are the unanswered replies to threads on this board that suggested Global Warming was a hoax but when the thread was pursued and replies showed information that wasn't liked by the original posters the replies went unanswered.

Here is another example for you...

http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d22-The-Hockey-Stick-was-never-accurateand-CRU-knew-it

The hockey stick and the CRU.

http://www.wmo.ch/pages/prog/wcp/wcdmp/statemnt/wmo913.pdf

Within the emails...as I have posted...are desires to extinguish the MWP. The hockey stick was pushed by Jones and Mann...and according to ALL available research from the core samples...the LIA cooled by at least 2C. However, Mann and Jones ...LIA only cooled the earth by about .1 - .2C.

Understand that? According to the MAIN GUYS...LIA only brought the earths average temps down .1 - .2C.

The Thymes froze over...during winter you could walk from Manhattan to Staten Is...yet...its only .1 - .2C of cooling (even though the core samples show 2C (4F) or cooling).

Now...if you want to manipulate the data to show a big increase during the 20th century...you have to smooth LIA and the MWP so there is very little cooling. That way when you come out of LIA you have a lot of warming.

However...LIA cooled 2C...and we have .6C of warming in the last century...and you really don't know why I don't trust these people? They can't even get (or be HONEST) the amount of cooling seen in LIA correctly. Even Briffa...who is on the extreme...is still 1.5C too warm.

They are manipulating data just like they did in NZ.

[brunota2003]

Remember the painting of Washington crossing the Delaware River, with huge chunks of ice floating about? Where is all that ice now? What about the Winter Festivals (dont remember where those were) that no longer exist, because we came out of the LIA and the rivers and lakes stopped freezing over?

[Air Force Met]

Remember the painting of Washington crossing the Delaware River, with huge chunks of ice floating about? Where is all that ice now? What about the Winter Festivals (dont remember where those were) that no longer exist, because we came out of the LIA and the rivers and lakes stopped freezing over?

Yes...during LIA...the Brits held a carnival/fair on the Thymes during winter because it was always frozen over. They did this for about 200 years from ~1600-~1800.

Now Mann and the CRU gang try to tell us that all this frozen water came from only .1-.2C of cooling from MWP to the LIA.

Ok...

[HenkL]

I think Air Force Met has to calm down a little bit.

The Thames or whatever river wasn't frozen about 200 years. During the LIA there were more cold winters then usual, but there were very mild winters also during that period.

The New Zealand guys (CNCNZ) are just a handful of non-scientists. They know they are wrong, because it was explained to them 2 years ago: for instance you cannot handle two stations with an important difference in height as if it were one station, as they do.

For the moment, there are 5 series of 'world temperatures': GISS/NASA, NCDC/NOAA, HADCRU, RSS and UAH. If you look at the recent 30 years (because only then we have RSS/UAH data), there isn't much difference between the series (anomalies): our planet is warming.

[vbhoutex]

I don't think the debate is over whether the planet has/is warming but over how much now that the revelations of data manipulation have happened.
It is obvious there are many strong powers(trying to stay non-political here)still manipulating the media with almost no coverage of this anywhere. Yet today I saw an advertisement about the Copenhagen conference and how it was meeting to "save the planet".

[MGC]

No doubt the planet has warmed since the little ice age ended. It is all natural I took a Alaskan cruise a couple of years ago. The ship visited Glacier Bay. A National Park Service ranger came aboard ship, with him were many charts of the bay. The charts showed the retreat of the glaciers which has been occurring since the mid 1800. Seem like every day I hear on the TV or radio a new threat concocted by the AGW crowd. It seem every conceivable threat to humanity and life in general on the planet is covered. Just the other day I heard on the radio that 50% of the species that exist on Earth today could be extinct soon if CO2 emissions are not drastically reduced. The AGW crowd is using untrue scare tactics to influence the gullible. It is just a load of bovine excrement....MGC

[psyclone]

well i suspected this was a scam...looks like the biggest episode of punk'd ever. it sure is nice to see these "scientists" working (with your money) to "forge" a consensus. Whether it was a hacker or a whistle blower that person has done us all a huge favor. after years of exhausting hysterics promulgated by the AGW crowd, i must confess it is delightful to watch this Madoff-style implosion.

[Air Force Met]

I think Air Force Met has to calm down a little bit.

The Thames or whatever river wasn't frozen about 200 years. During the LIA there were more cold winters then usual, but there were very mild winters also during that period.

The New Zealand guys (CNCNZ) are just a handful of non-scientists. They know they are wrong, because it was explained to them 2 years ago: for instance you cannot handle two stations with an important difference in height as if it were one station, as they do.

For the moment, there are 5 series of 'world temperatures': GISS/NASA, NCDC/NOAA, HADCRU, RSS and UAH. If you look at the recent 30 years (because only then we have RSS/UAH data), there isn't much difference between the series (anomalies): our planet is warming.

Excuse me? Calm down?

First of all...I never said the Thames was frozen for 200 years. However, during the LIA winter's it was frozen during the many winters...and that's when they had the Frost Fairs. During LIA...it was about 2C colder than usual...which lead to tens if not hundreds of millions of deaths. That is a fact. Just a little bit of cooling can do great damage. A cooling earth is MUCH more deadly than a warming one.

Why look at the last 30 years alone? The climate fluctuates. AGW people always LOVE for you to look at the last 30 years...or the last 100 years. They REALLY don't want you to look from 1940 - 1975 though...But they love to take the data from 1975 and on as if it is isolated from what has happened in the past. Its not. THAT is manipulation. Sorry if you think I need to calm down...but I don't like being manipulated and lied to.

Now...please understand this...the issue is not whether the earth has warmed over the last 30 years or not. I don't think many really argue that point. The debate is whether or not CO2 is causing it...is it MANMADE. I find that laughable. THAT is what I am angry about. As a scientist...I can look at data and see many cooling and warming periods during the past. However, AGW people always want to downplay and hide/manipulate the data that shows this...because it shows we are in a natural warming cycle that followed a period of cooling caused by the Maunder min. Sediment core samples PROVE 2C of cooling (micro-organism counts are dead on accurate for temps) during LIA...but the "Hockey stick" released by CRU...which has been thoroughly refuted by all data...shows very little cooling...and also very little warming during the MWP...which is also a blatant lie. See the story on the main page on the Swiss. .3C of warming does not cause the glaciers to disappear during the MWP...followed by LIA with .2C of cooling causing them to advance to unheard of level. Add to that the emails that show they wanted to smooth the MWP. Wonder why? Use your imagination.

CO2 - Here is the MAIN source of my "lack of calm." This is the biggest lie out there. Core samples have PROVEN (not theory like AGW...but PROVEN) that CO2 ALWAYS lags temp increases. However, in an "Inconvenient Truth" and other AGW material...it is displayed as if it is a cause because it is a greenhouse gas. How can it be a cause when it is a lagging indicator? What has been proven to be a statistical dead ringer for warming is the SUN. It doesn't have a 500-800 year lag like C02...but is a cause. So why is CO2 a cause NOW...but wasn't before...but yet AGW climatologists use it as support to prove causality now? Please explain that...

Therefore...CO2 as a reason for recent warming is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. If its not...it should be in the core samples...and we should not have had cooling during 1940-1975.

The other thing that busts the theory of CO2 being the cause of warming is the fact the middle atmosphere is not warming as the models indicate. If CO2 were the cause of the warming...the middle atmosphere would warm faster than the sfc...that is not happening. Neither satellite not upper air data shows it. That disproves it right there.

What about the urban heat island effect on temps in the data base? Why not address that? That's real...I can prove it every winter morning right here in Houston.

So...my anger is at people who have an agenda...who are manipulating facts and erasing history...and for what?

So here is my challenge: Prove CO2=warming. Stipulations are you can't use the past because frankly CO2 is a lagging indicator according to ice core samples. Thats a proven fact. So prove CO2= warming and its not a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. You can't. I can throw it even MORE data that shows the sun is a leading cause of climate change (cool and warm) than anyone else can that CO2 is. So...given the experts are only 90% "sure" and their science is based on a bad reading of history...yet a good reading of history shows the Sun is a key player...why wouldn't I...or YOU...or anyone be upset at a group of people trying to destroy our economy? And don't kid yourself...the changes they want to implement immediately WILL devastate us economically.

So why can't I be upset at that?

[Air Force Met]

No doubt the planet has warmed since the little ice age ended. It is all natural I took a Alaskan cruise a couple of years ago. The ship visited Glacier Bay. A National Park Service ranger came aboard ship, with him were many charts of the bay. The charts showed the retreat of the glaciers which has been occurring since the mid 1800. Seem like every day I hear on the TV or radio a new threat concocted by the AGW crowd. It seem every conceivable threat to humanity and life in general on the planet is covered. Just the other day I heard on the radio that 50% of the species that exist on Earth today could be extinct soon if CO2 emissions are not drastically reduced. The AGW crowd is using untrue scare tactics to influence the gullible. It is just a load of bovine excrement....MGC

Now they are blaming wars in Africa on AGW. Its climate change that is leading to people being killed. Its not tribal issue coupled with extreme overpopulation which can't be handled by the environment...but AGW.

This is why I am upset Henkl...if you are going to report something...report the TRUTH. EVERY environment has a carrying capacity...whether its for lions...cows...or people. When a population exceeds the carrying capacity...members of that population die. In the case of humans...when the population explodes past the carrying capacity...as it has in parts of Africa (and did in Europe during the MWP)...the population is "culled" so to speak by 1) Famine and 2) Disease and 3) War.

That is fundamental anthropology. However, with all things AGW...we must not think logically...and therefore even though the population of Africa is past its carrying capacity in places...we must subscribe the dying off to AGW...not other forces.

This is just like the article concerning the antarctic icebergs. Printed everywhere. Now...when the antarctic ice sheet was 1 million KM ABOVE the 30 yr mean during the winter...why weren't there articles written?

Don't tell me there isn't an agenda.

[srainhoutx]

I don't think the debate is over whether the planet has/is warming but over how much now that the revelations of data manipulation have happened.
It is obvious there are many strong powers(trying to stay non-political here)still manipulating the media with almost no coverage of this anywhere. Yet today I saw an advertisement about the Copenhagen conference and how it was meeting to "save the planet".

This is one of my biggest concerns. Are not some of the very people quoted in the information (e-mails) we've seen contributors of data to the Copenhagen Conference?

[jinftl]

For the period from January 1, 2000, to September 30, 2009, the continental United States set 291,237 record highs and 142,420 record lows. If am understanding the discussion here, the question is not whether this period has shown evidence of warming, but rather, what is (are) the causes...and how much of a hand in that has man had?

No matter the causes or causes of the warming, those numbers show that even a 'warmer' climate doesn't mean that record cold episodes won't take place some place at some point. It is the frequency and proportion to record heat that tells the story.


http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2009 ... 12-091.asp

[Air Force Met]

For the period from January 1, 2000, to September 30, 2009, the continental United States set 291,237 record highs and 142,420 record lows. If am understanding the discussion here, the question is not whether this period has shown evidence of warming, but rather, what is (are) the causes...and how much of a hand in that has man had?

No matter the causes or causes of the warming, those numbers show that even a 'warmer' climate doesn't mean that record cold episodes won't take place some place at some point. It is the frequency and proportion to record heat that tells the story.


http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2009 ... 12-091.asp

Exactly. What CAUSED the 2:1 record high-low ratio? Research has proven that 90% American weather stations are contaminated by at least 1C of warming due to heat island. Now...thats almost 2 degrees F. 60% of these stations have been contaminated by 2C-4.9C of warming...thats 3.6F - 8.8F of warming.

So...considering that many of those 290K records were long standing...and the contamination of stations due to heat island is a relatively new phenomenon...how many of those records are directly caused by the addition of man-made heat or heat retaining substances near the observing site? I would say A LOT...because the overnight lows is where we have had a big increase in these records.

Take a station that was in a field and surrounded by a couple of buildings 100 years ago that reported a high of 90 in April and it was a record...now add 2 degrees of warming due to the fact we have numerous buildings...parking lots (and the occasional air conditioning vent...yes I've seen it!) and that stations reports a record high of 91F in April...

Is it really a record? Yes looking purely at data. Did mankind cause it? Well...yeah...because we built stuff...but did CO2 cause it? No.

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

I'm going to apologize here- In the past few years on storm2k in this global
weather forum I have made very strong statements condemning AGW skeptics
as "arrogant" and delusional" (do a forum search). I wish now to apologize for those
premature and rude statements- I was so caught up in the ideas promoted by
main stream media networks that my judgement as an objective pursuer of facts was
significantly compromised. This is not sarcasm I am being honest.

The information presented here by AFM is too strong and compelling to ignore-
Based on what I'm reading here that GW is a natural cycle and the warming we have now is natural...

Now I'm not bashing AGW-ers, in fact my intention is to bash no one, I just want to see the
facts and thank you AFM for posting that.

[HenkL]

I fully agree with Air Force Met (AFM) that problems in Africa have very little to do with any warming. There is a lot of PR going round these days, on all sides.

CO2 = warming is proven a lot of times. If it wasn't, we both would have freezing temperatures most of the year. Science about this issue dates more then 100 years ago: see http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm.

In the history of glacials and interglacials insolation due to changing sun/earth parameters are the primary source for climate shifts. But the changes in insolation are too small to explain the temperature differences. There must be an amplifying factor, CO2 indeed. Higher temperatures due to the sun causes natural releases of greenhouse gases like CO2 and vice versa, with an amplifying effect.
If all things would go on natural, the sun/earth parameters nowadays would lead to a new ice age, although very slowly (some 15.000 years ahead).

But things are not only natural these days. Mankind is releasing a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere, more then oceans and plants/trees can capture. So this must have a warming effect. But it is not the only driver on climate. We also have the sun (11 year cycles with minor effects, Milankovitch cycles with great effects), volcanoes with short but very significant effects, changes due to ElNino/LaNina, changes in aerosol releases.

Is the above anything new? No. Was there anything new in the stolen e-mails? No. Does it effect the temperatures of the last decennia? No.

I agree with the statement from AFM: "EVERY environment has a carrying capacity ... ". But this also means that if the environment is changing (for instance a climate change), the capacity will change.

[Air Force Met]

I'm going to apologize here- In the past few years on storm2k in this global
weather forum I have made very strong statements condemning AGW skeptics
as "arrogant" and delusional" (do a forum search). I wish now to apologize for those
premature and rude statements- I was so caught up in the ideas promoted by
main stream media networks that my judgement as an objective pursuer of facts was
significantly compromised. This is not sarcasm I am being honest.

The information presented here by AFM is too strong and compelling to ignore-
Based on what I'm reading here that GW is a natural cycle and the warming we have now is natural...

Now I'm not bashing AGW-ers, in fact my intention is to bash no one, I just want to see the
facts and thank you AFM for posting that.

Thanks...I don't have a problem with any AGW people here...I have an issue with those propagating a theory as fact and attempting to subdue an entire nation's economy to some how level the playing field.

For instance...something frequently heralded by AGW proponents is increasing tornadic activity and increasing tornado violence. This proves that the AGW cheerleaders are basically throwing everything they can against the wall and hoping something sticks. AGW, in theory, should decrease the number of tornadoes, along with their intensity...not increase it. AGW is supposed to warm the poles more rapidly than the equator and the #1 reason for the existence of tornadoes is the temperature difference b/w the poles and the equator.

Some thing with hurricanes. Could it be that maybe we've got better technology and can detect them easier? Could it be there are more people and more structures to damage?

Most AGW look at the world through a static lens. They fail to take into account ANY natural changes or the possibility that man is just living in places he didn't 100 years ago.

Sum it up:
1) The current warming is pretty similar to that experienced in the 30's. Corrected data shows some years in the 30's were warmer than even '97.

2) Mann's hockey stick is wrong wrong wrong. Most (except his) temp analysis shows us right back to the level of temps experienced during the MWP...pre-LIA. Loehle and Moberg reconstructed the temps over the last 1000 yrs and it seems, according to them, we are still .4C cooler than the MWP.

3) The IPCC dismissed solar irradiance (SI) and no longer coorelated it with temps in the data after 1975! They smoothed the MPW and LIA to less than .2C. These have both been proved wrong.

4) Heat Island...Heat Island...Heat Island. Want to see it in action? Compare KHOU (Hobby Airport) to KLBX (Angleton) during most fall, winter and spring days. You will see a difference in temps sometimes, especially overnight lows, by as much as 6 degrees F...if not more. LBX is closer to the coast and a little further south. If should be warmer. But...its in the middle of nowhere. Hobby is surrounded by Houston's asphalt jungle.

Bottom line: CO2 is a natural greenhouse gas. The ocean and decaying plant matter empty far more CO2 into the atmosphere than man. But...even if you think CO2 is the big meanie on the block...good luck getting China and the other developing countries of the world to limit theirs. We could cut our emissions to 0...and it would still be increasing because right now...China is outpacing us by 9:1.

Now I am a greenie...make no mistake. But...I'm a French greenie. Build more Nuke plants. Build Solar and wind...but build more nuke's. Do it right. Reprocess the fuel. Reactor technology is such now that nuclear energy is very efficient with very little left over waste (since the new reactors burn so hot). Do it gradually as to not kill our economy..,but do it.

But I don't think I need to tell anyone that the very people who are pushing AGW in this country are the ones standing in the way of nuclear energy.

[Air Force Met]

I fully agree with Air Force Met (AFM) that problems in Africa have very little to do with any warming. There is a lot of PR going round these days, on all sides.

CO2 = warming is proven a lot of times. If it wasn't, we both would have freezing temperatures most of the year. Science about this issue dates more then 100 years ago: see http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm.

In the history of glacials and interglacials insolation due to changing sun/earth parameters are the primary source for climate shifts. But the changes in insolation are too small to explain the temperature differences. There must be an amplifying factor, CO2 indeed. Higher temperatures due to the sun causes natural releases of greenhouse gases like CO2 and vice versa, with an amplifying effect.
If all things would go on natural, the sun/earth parameters nowadays would lead to a new ice age, although very slowly (some 15.000 years ahead).

But things are not only natural these days. Mankind is releasing a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere, more then oceans and plants/trees can capture. So this must have a warming effect. But it is not the only driver on climate. We also have the sun (11 year cycles with minor effects, Milankovitch cycles with great effects), volcanoes with short but very significant effects, changes due to ElNino/LaNina, changes in aerosol releases.

Is the above anything new? No. Was there anything new in the stolen e-mails? No. Does it effect the temperatures of the last decennia? No.

I agree with the statement from AFM: "EVERY environment has a carrying capacity ... ". But this also means that if the environment is changing (for instance a climate change), the capacity will change.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas...but it is just one GHG...and isn't the most important or the most abundant. Water vapor is. The reason we aren't frozen has nothing to do with CO2...its water vapor.

As far as changes go...its really very simple. We are coming out of LIA. Look at an ACCURATE temp representation of the last 1000 years and the temps today fit in very nicely with the curve. If you use the one that Mann et al manipulated (as they admit to attempting to do) in order to smooth MWP and LIA...then it does look like a hockey stick. Correct it using core samples and actual data...BINGO...it falls smoothly into the curve of MPW and LIA.

Also...CO2 is RELEASED from the oceans...especially as they warm (which would naturally happen when coming out of a LIA...right?). CU-Boulder's Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research found that at the end of the last glaciation...two "burps" (as they call it) were released as the oceans warmed...18K and 13K yrs ago. Now the oceans so take up CO2...
but when they warm...they release more than they take. When they cool...they take it up again. During the end of the last glaciation...the new forests absorbed it. However, since LIA ended and more CO2 is being released by a warmer ocean...we have cut down a lot of that "uptake" ability.

And yes there was a lot new in the emails. I suggest you read them. "How about "we cannot account for the lack of warming?" Now...if they admit that amongst themselves...shouldn't that be something they are public with? If you are a scientist without an agenda...and just in it for the pure science...WHEREVER THAT TAKES YOU...you do not bury that. However...the most interesting information is in the actual "data."

Its not the temps of the lat few decades that is the problem...its the temps during LIA and MWP. Again...if you falsely smooth those (and try to get rid of the MPW as Mann et al has attempted...call it local...blah blah blah...even though core samples from all over the world show it was not)...you make the last few decades look like a run away roll-a-coaster. Little blips then BAM! However...shown in their proper perspective...MWP...LIA and the current warm up...even the cooling (and transposed with solar irradiance)...fall nicely in line.

And yes...if the environment changes...the carrying capacity changes. That's what happened in Europe during LIA. My complaint is that those with the agenda stick everything on the tray of AGW as it passes by in order to scare people....even if its not true and they know it. Why would anyone trust what they say when that reeks of agenda?

[Air Force Met]

For consideration: What I am talking about concerning Mann/Jones datasets with MWP and LIA. When you put the current warming in perspective...by measuring it up against what the earth has done in the past (and not just since 1975)...the current warming really dwarfs in comparison. In the image below...the BLUE line is the closest we can get to the actual global temp anomaly. This is what is confirmed in the sediment data.



Shows why the emails regarding tree-ring data are so crucial and why they don't want to use it after 1960...'cause it doesn't work. However...it fits the purpose before 1960...so they use it.

Another look:



Taking a look with even more time involved:


Now 65 million years...


Look at the amount of variation over the last 1 MY. 8C...

[Cyclenall]

So the truth finally came out, THANK YOU white hat hackers. I was on the fence about Global Warming in general but after a couple years of leaning to GW not being a "critical issue", I can now safely say AGW is one of the greatest scams in human history.

The reason the media isn't covering it and why it's not bombshell news that should be the top story of every newscast for weeks, is because they are part of the supposed cover-up as someone already stated. They would look quite foolish and the credibility of the mainstream news establishment would take a hit. I'm not too surprised about that either.

Time to collect those Global Warming films, repackage them, and sell them off as coasters for drinks...