venerdì 4 dicembre 2009

L’Associazione EFFETTO CINEMA in collaborazione con il Comune di Umbertide annuncia in data venerdì 4 dicembre l’apertura del nuovo cinema comunale METROPOLIS. La sala sorgerà presso i locali della FA.MO in Piazza Carlo Marx (ex Chiesa di Cristo Risorto) e consta di 99 posti a sedere e dispositivi di proiezione audio/video di ultima generazione, capaci di garantire una fruizione confortevole e al passo con i tempi. La sala sarà aperta sei giorni alla settimana, garantendo una programmazione regolare di film di qualità. L’Associazione EFFETTO CINEMA intende riportare presso il pubblico umbertidese il gusto per il grande cinema e l’interesse verso gli aspetti peculiari di questo mondo, mantenendo sempre aperto un canale di comunicazione con la cittadinanza e offrendo eventi e incontri con i protagonisti e i nuovi volti che agitano il mondo della settima arte. La programmazione comincerà in data 4 dicembre con la proiezione del nuovo film di Michael Mann ‘Nemico pubblico’ con Johnny Depp, per poi proseguire in data 7 dicembre con il nuovo lungometraggio della Pixar ‘Up’, che ha già riscontrato un notevole successo di pubblico e critica in tutto il mondo. L’inaugurazione della sala è fissata per le ore 17 e sarà occasione per un primo incontro con il pubblico al quale faranno da contorno una serie d’iniziative speciali legate al mondo del cinema, tra cui la proiezione del documentario ‘Umbertidesi al cinema’ realizzato dall’Associazione Effetto Cinema e l’esposizione della mitica Delorean, la macchina del tempo vista nella trilogia di ‘Ritorno al futuro’. La programmazione partirà la sera stessa a partire dalle 21, ora in cui si avrà il primo spettacolo ufficiale

————————————————————————————————-

VUOI ESSERE AMICO DI GOODMORNINGUMBRIA?

scrivi a redazione@goodmorningumbria.it

————————————————————————————————————————

HOTEL RISTORANTE LA ROSETTA****

Centro Storico di Perugia  p. Italia tel. 075 5720841

larosetta@perugiaonline.com

————————————————————————————————

“C’ERA UNA VOLTA” – GIOCATTOLI

di Lorena Tega

PROSSIMA APERTURA Via Vittorio Veneto – Gualdo Tadino

tel. 075 9140664

————————————————————————————————————————

OTTO Abbigliamento Donna

di Maurizio Giorgelli

via Bonazzi 8 Perugia tel. 075 5729084

————————————————————————————————————————

PARAFARMACIA EMALFARMA

di Emanuela Coreno e C.

via Settevalli 208/b  Perugia  tel. 075 5004777

————————————————————————————————————————

Professor Phil Jones

Doctor Michael Mann

‘The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. . . . We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.”

 So apparently wrote Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) and one of the world’s leading climate scientists, in a 2005 email to “Mike.” Judging by the email thread, this refers to Michael Mann, director of the Pennsylvania State University’s Earth System Science Center.

Does the breathless e-mail passage quoted above between Phil ‘McCrackin’ Jones and Michael ’I'm not a smart ’ Mann seem like two dispassionate scientists?  Or does it seem more like a couple of nervous high school girls passing notes to each other while the teacher isn’t looking?  Just curious.  Scientists-well, reputable ones anyway- don’t have to hide behind a data protection act.  They don’t need to be forced by FOIA requests to share their findings.  Phil and Mike have just been outed as a couple of  teenage nerdlingtons masquerading as adults. 

I might be a little off  on this, but here’s my read:  Jones and Mann have had a long-running scientific and possibly personal rivalry with Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (the MM’s referred to in the quoted passage).  In recent years Jones and Mann have become rock stars in the Climate Change Cult.  They’ve been getting a lot of attention from non-geeks, the MSM and left-of-center politicians.  Their work is being taken seriously by the big-wigs and swells.  They’re getting their balls tickled by important people.  More than that, their studies are going to be used as the basis for international law.  They now have a seat as the adults’ table and they don’t ever want to leave.  

The problem is that they’ve built their reputations on the fake-o-la science they’ve been pushing as objective fact to the rest of the world.  They also know that anthropogenic global warming skeptics, like Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, have been slowly punching holes in the hockey-stick graph and the other fraudulent climate change models.  The MM’s and the rest of the skeptics are a real danger to Jones and Mann’s continued stay in at the kool kids’ klubhouse.  Without the foot in the door that is human-caused global warming, Jones and Mann have to go back to mingling with the regular folk…and they just can’t bear the thought of becoming anonymous tweedy college profs again.  So what do they do?  Hide the decline, fudge data, deny the existence of contrary positions, shun skeptics and in general act like insufferable dickbags.

It would be hilarious if it weren’t for the fact that the Jones/Mann global warming model…aka the fictional non-real fake-as-fuck bullshit…has become embedded in the policy cupboard of much of the leftist parties in the West.  Anthropogenic climate change is still believed in by a majority of the US population.  The climate change cult has managed to infect voters and politicians alike with a tanker load of intellectual horsedung.  They’re now determined to foist their carbon reducing schemes-again, based on junk science and the enviro-statist theology-upon the rest of us, all because they really truly feel that we have to do something for our pwecious pwanet Earth! 

So for now, I’ll put up the pictures of Jones and Mann.  If more fakers get outed later on, I’ll update the list.  I figured I’d let you know that these two talentless ass-clowns are crummy frauds who have foisted their economy-killing, job-destroying, freedom-hating agenda upon all of us for the most childish reasons imaginable.  Congratulations ladies-you’re officially lame as fuck. 

I learned a lot from Wattsupwiththat.com, who has done yeoman’s work on this story.  Also, Watt has posted a website where they’ve collated the hacked e-mails.  In the next week or so, I’d say we’re gonna see stuff that makes the already publicized material look like a walk in the park.

John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) è un rapinatore di banche. E’ attraente, in gamba e spietato. Ha una sua banda, che lo segue fedelmente, e una donna conquistata senza troppi affanni. La Federal Bureau Investigation, diretta da un impassibile quanto tenace Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale), lo insegue dichiarandolo ‘nemico pubblico’. Sullo sfondo, l’America degli anni ‘30 e una malinconica sensazione di un cinema che vuole essere grande, ma non riesce. La confezione è quella dei grandi film d’autore: i costumi, le scenografie e anche gli attori hanno fatto guadagnare al film lodi sperticate e attenzioni spropositate. Il talento di Michael Mann non è in discussione. Personalmente, considero il suo Heat-La Sfida il miglior film poliziesco degli ultimi 20 anni. Ma ciò che mi preme puntualizzare circa Nemico Pubblico è che arriva tardi e non fa altro che sfruttare consolidati cliché del cinema che neppure a blasonati sex symbols di Hollywood dovrebbe essere affidato il compito di risuscitare. Senza scomodare Humphrey Bogart, viene facile accostare Nemico Pubblico a Heat, lungometraggio girato da Mann nel 1996.

Il poliziesco interpretato da De Niro e Al Pacino rappresentava una superba sintesi di eleganza, azione, suspence, sentimento, ritmo e impatto scenico. I personaggi, tutti, erano caratterizzati con cura. I dialoghi sempre essenziali e spesso intensi. Anche il duro De Niro, omologo del Dillinger dell’ultima fatica di Mann, mostrava un lato umano e sensibile nella sua tormentata relazione sentimentale. Al contrario del volgare e spavaldo protagonista di Nemico Pubblico, che supera le timide resistenze di Billie (Marion Cotillard) gonfiando il petto e brandendo il cappotto. Assolutamente fuori luogo appare anche il parallelo tra l’algida e antipatica sicumera dell’investigatore Bale e il fascino carismatico che caratterizza il tenente della polizia Al Pacino sulle tracce del criminale De Niro.

Nemico Pubblico non coinvolge, né sorprende, né stupisce. I ritmi sono lenti, e l’evolversi della storia è prevedibile, frettolosa, banale. Il punto più basso e direi ridicolo del film viene raggiunto quando Dillinger, ricercato numero uno dopo la morte dei suoi compagni, penetra indisturbato negli uffici dell’FBI mentre gli agenti si trovano radunati attorno alla tv per guardare una partita di football americano. Dillinger osserva in tutta tranquillità le sue foto segnaletiche affisse sulle bacheche, osando addirittura prendersi gioco dei federali chiedendo loro il risultato del match prima di andarsene (sic!).

A guardare il trailer sembra si stia per assistere ad un capolavoro del cinema, mentre in realtà ci si potrebbe fermare lì, perchè il film dimostra che Mann non ha altri ingrediendi da aggiungere alla sua minestra.

Nemico Pubblico non si libererà dall’ombra di Heat, di cui resta solo un patetico tentativo di emulazione.

Voto: 4.

Glenn Beck and Others Expose Climategate

Nemico pubblico

Date e orari delle proiezioni:

• sabato 28 novembre 2009, ore 21:00
• domenica 29 novembre 2009, ore 16:30 e 21:00

Scheda:

• Paese: Stati Uniti
• Durata: 2h e 23′
• Genere: Azione
• Regia: Michael Mann
• Anno: 2009
• Distributore: Universal Pictures International Italy

Sinossi

Nessuno poteva fermare Dillinger e la sua banda. Non esisteva prigione dalla quale non riuscisse ad evadere. Il suo carisma e le rocambolesche fughe dalle prigioni lo rendevano interessante agli occhi di tutti: da quelli della sua fidanzata Billie Frechette a quelli del pubblico americano che non aveva simpatia per le banche responsabili di aver fatto precipitare il paese nella depressione.

Ma mentre le avventure di Dillinger e della sua banda – che nell’ultimo periodo comprendeva anche due individui sociopatici dal nome Baby Face Nelson e Alvin Karpis – intrigavano i più, Hoover si riproponeva di utilizzare la pubblicità che la cattura del criminale avrebbe potuto generare in suo favore per trasformare il suo Bureau of Investigation nel dipartimento di polizia nazionale che è adesso l’FBI. Fece pertanto di Dillinger il primo Nemico Pubblico Numero Uno degli Stati Uniti d’America, mettendogli alle calcagna Purvis, l’affascinante ‘Clark Gable dell’FBI’.

Sito ufficiale: http://www.cinema.universalpictures.it/online/nemicopubblico/

Win the new 16GB exclusive RED iPOD (it shoots VIDEO!) by simply visiting the ALM Talkies Newsletter and SUBSCRIBING NO LATER THAN DEC. 2 . . . THAT’S IT! You could be the winner. Already subscribed to the ALM Talkies newsletter? No worries, you’ll automatically be entered.

The first week of Girl In The Reds Dress Giveaway starts Nov. 26, and is sponsored by THE REDS. The first winner’s iPOD Nano will be loaded with three songs by The Reds, SIDEBUSTER, DIGGIN’ IT and BIG TOWN, PLUS a brand new film short by British director, Peter McAdam, of The Reds song SO LONG, and the first winner gets two Reds pins.

Also loaded on the iPOD, for every winner, will be Girl In The Red Dress: EP, single “Who’s That Girl,” and artwork, Dirty Step Upstage: Trailer, featurettes, unseen stills, and exclusive music video preview, a personalized video to the winner using the iPod nano video recorder, and Dirty Up Stage promotional pins, and DSU movie poster!

Hey, before you click over to the ALM Talkies web site, SUBSCRIBE to THE REDS BLOG, to get The Reds news and promotion info first.

-Posted by Tarock Music

• (in progress)
• 24.11.2009 – Allarme dell’Oms sul vaccino dell’H1N1 “Gravi reazioni allergiche in Canada”

http://twitter.com.lucamarcon

Here on Watts Up With That.

Here are a few of my favorites, with links to the original e-mails.

• Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.(1256765544)
• Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)
• Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709). Analysis of impact here. Wow!
• Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI (Freedom of Information) request.(1212063122)
• Phil Jones says he has use Mann’s “Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series”…to hide the decline”. Real Climate says “hiding” was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)
• Kevin Trenberth says they can’t account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can’t.(1255352257)
• Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be “hiding behind them”.(1106338806)
• Reaction to McIntyre’s 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper’s editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460) [Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted]
• Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.(1132094873)

It goes on and on. There are FORTY-SEVEN of these.

Is this science?

Comments in CRU source code

Check out these comments in the source code of a CRU program that explains why CRU uses some data, but not other data.

From documents\harris-tree\recon_esper.pro:

; Computes regressions on full, high and low pass Esper et al. (2002) series,
; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series.
; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline
;

Is this science?

Note: a search engine for the leaked e-mails is now online.

All the news that fits, they print.

Story from Michael Goldfarb of the Weekly Standard. (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

With the release of hundreds of emails by scientists advocates of global warming showing obvious and entirely inappropriate collusion by the authors — including attempts to suppress dissent, to punish journals that publish peer-reviewed studies casting doubt on global warming, and to manipulate data to bolster their own arguments — even the New York Times is forced to concede that “the documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists.” But apparently the paper’s environmental blog, Dot Earth, is taking a pass on publishing any of the documents and emails that are now circulating.

[...]This is the position of the New York Times when given the chance to publish sensitive information that might hinder the liberal agenda. Of course, when the choice is between publishing classified information that might endanger the lives of U.S. troops in the field or intelligence programs vital to national security, that information is published without hesitation by the nation’s paper of record.

Click here to read all the details.

Glenn Beck gives a good summary of the e-mails here:

Here is my previous post on the hacked e-mails.

Related posts

• Comparison of hockey stick graph data to a larger data set in the same area
• Government-funded research unit destroyed original climate data
• The state of the debate about catastrophic man-made global warming
• Peer-reviewed article in journal Science says solar activity impacts climate
• Famous UN IPCC hockey stick graph is based on cherry-picked data
• Princeton physics professor testifies to Senate about global warming
• Global warming advocates refuse to give their data to skeptics
• Peer-reviewed article in journal Science says prior ice melting caused by solar variation
• Oceans are not warming now
• Polar ice caps are not melting now
• Polar bear populations are not decreasing now
• Global warming is not caused by humans

Were those emails from CRU in the UK “hacked” from the system?  People I talk to who know a thing or two about network security say it’s a given that nearly all hacked material is actually taken by insiders who have access to passwords and network storage locations.  So, most likely, a disgruntled person at CRU spilt the beans.

As a result, we have the spectacle of true believers foaming at the mouth, always edifying, as it shows more reasonable people how they most certainly do NOT want to behave.  Consider this comment on Andrew Revkin’s blog:

According to e-mails hacked and re-posted on public file sharing sites in Russia, there has been a concerted, concentrated, and organized effort by scientists subscribing to theories of global warming to silence any scholarly opposition.

There are two main schools of thought with regard to climate change: the first is that the planet is heating quickly and that human activity is the biggest, and perhaps only, cause of it. The second is that there is some climate change happening, but the causes, effects, and extent of it are not fully understood. There isn’t enough historical data available to know if any change is the result of recent activity, or historical trends… and if the result of recent activity, then what activity, precisely?

The Wall Street Journal reports that scientists who subscribe to the first, ”imminent doom” theory have threatened to “shut out dissenters and their points of view,” going so far as to disallow peer review of scholarly research by dissenters. Phil Jones, an environmental scientist who believes humans are the only cause of global warming, explained to colleague Michael Mann at Penn State that he would “keep them out somehow.”

University of Alabama scientist John Christy, who has asked scientific organizations to allow dissenting opinions to be published in scholarly journals, is alarmed at the contents of the e-mails: “It’s disconcerting to realize that legislative actions this nation is preparing to take, and which will cost trillions of dollars, are based upon a view of climate that has not been completely scientifically tested.”

If the environmental lobbies and politically correct “scientific” orthodoxies continue to hold sway, it appears that such a view will never have the chance to be completely tested. The overly vocal left won’t allow it.

As much as Rush Limbaugh may shout down cogent left-leaning criticism for the sake of the party line, so too do leftist scientists treat colleagues who criticize what climate researcher Mojib Latif calls “a kind of mafia that is trying to inhibit critical papers from being published.”

Environmentalist methodology.

MUST READ!
CLIMATE BOMBSHELL: Hacker Leaks E-Mails Exposing the Global Warming Hoax

Corbett Report / Taxpayers’ Alliance
November 20, 2009

A hacker has leaked thousands of emails and documents from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University that appear to show how climate change data was fudged and the peer review process skewed to favor the manmade climate change hypothesis.

Irrespective of how important your subject area is, what your views on the topic might be, or how much you dislike the person making the request, Freedom of Information is too valuable and too important to just be ridden over roughshod like this. [Source]

Unsurprisingly, there has so far been deafening silence on this issue in the controlled corporate media, but in light of the upcoming Copenhagen Treaty talks, it is imperative that we have a true and open debate about climate change before we make potentially world-changing decisions based on this science. It is up to all of us to push this story and its staggering implications into the mainstream.

Climategate: Why it matters

Kurt Nimmo
Prison Planet.com
November 23, 2009

Globalist minion Al Gore and the United Nations climate change shysters led by Phil Jones are in trouble. Last week hackers uncovered a pile of email and documents revealing what many of us already knew — the climate change agenda is based not only on easily debunked junk science, but outright lies and deception.

Michael E. Mann
The key thing is making sure the series are vertically aligned in a reasonable way. I had been using the entire 20th century, but in the case of Keith’s, we need to align the first half of the 20th century w/ the corresponding mean values of the other series, due to the late 20th century decline. So, if we show Keith’s series in this plot, we have to comment that “something else” is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates.

Dillinger è morto. Anzi, no. Dillinger è vivo. Ma è meglio dire vivido. È questo l’aggettivo che più si addice all’immagine che Michael Mann confeziona per il suo Nemico pubblico, ritratto di un uomo, il rapinatore gentiluomo John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) e di un’epoca, gli anni Trenta della Grande Depressione post 1929. Le immagini che raccontano questa storia così antica sono in realtà modernissime, nitide. Vivide, appunto. Il film è girato in digitale, un mezzo che nessun altro oggi sa usare come Michael Mann, che di questa tecnica può essere considerato il precursore, e uno dei più agguerriti sostenitori. Uno dei maestri, insomma.

Michael Mann per Nemico pubblico ha cercato la realtà. Ha voluto fare un film ambientato negli anni Trenta che non sembrasse un film d’epoca, senza filtri nostalgici. Come se ci si svegliasse e si trovasse lì, in quel tempo. Il digitale in Alta Definizione è uno dei fattori che hanno portato il film in questa direzione. Mann e il suo operatore Dante Spinotti, hanno usato vari tipi di telecamere HD per quasi tutte le scene: quattro nuove HDC-F23 della Sony e la XDCAM-EX1s. Le riprese sono una combinazione di macchina a mano, addosso ai volti degli attori, e di riprese in campo lungo sull’intera scena, realizzate contemporaneamente. La sensazione è quella di vedere quello che succede in tempo reale, un senso di immediatezza. Come se, pur se l’azione si svolge in un’epoca lontana, stessimo assistendo a un film verità. In questo senso sono state fatte le scelte per illuminare le scene: non dovevano essere illuminati solo gli attori, ma tutto l’ambiente circostante. “Abbiamo sempre tenuto a mente il realismo estremo della situazione” ha dichiarato Dante Spinotti. “Volevamo rappresentare, in modo aggressivo e vero, che cosa era quel tempo e che cos’è la scena. Così abbiamo illuminato tutta la scena e raramente solo l’inquadratura. Gli attori devono sembrare giusti, perfetti quando finiscono in primo piano e questo è stato girato con una telecamera per i primi piani, mentre un’altra riprende i primi piani opposti di altri attori o attrici”. Il risultato lascia sorpresi: è forse la prima volta che un ritratto d’epoca viene proposto con un’immagine così moderna e nitida, perfettamente definita, invece che con la classica fotografia più sgranata che siamo soliti associare alla patina d’epoca. L’immagine di Nemico pubblico è antica e moderna allo stesso tempo.

L’altra “sfida” di Mann per avvicinarsi al maggior grado possibile di realismo è stato girare nel maggior numero di luoghi reali possibile. Molti dei luoghi visitati da John Dillinger esistono ancora oggi. Quando vediamo il carcere di Lake County a Crown Point, nell’Indiana, o la pensione Little Bohemia a Manitowish Waters, in Wisconsin, vediamo i veri luoghi nei quali è stato Dillinger, e che sono stati teatro della sua sfida alla legalità. Anche il fatale cinema Biograph in Lincoln Avenue, di Chicago, che ha visto la sua fine, dopo che aveva visto Manhattan Melodrama (Le due strade), è quello vero. Il carcere  di Lake County, dove Dillinger fuggì con l’auto dello sceriffo, è dunque quello vero, non è stato inventato niente. Evidentemente non poteva essere nelle condizioni in cui si trovava negli anni Trenta, ma è stato ricostruito accuratamente in base alle foto scattate all’epoca (mentre per le celle, di cui non c’erano foto, si è lavorato d’immaginazione). Nella pensione Little Bohemia gli agenti dell’FBI circondarono Dillinger ma furono beffati dalla sua fuga. La pensione è un luogo turistico e ora è diventata un ristorante. È stato fatto un lavoro particolare per riportarle a quell’epoca, piantando degli arbusti sul terreno, e lavorando sulle camere. Che però sono proprio quelle in cui dormirono i gangster. “Come si può immaginare, per Johnny Depp c’è una sorta di magia nello sdraiarsi sul letto in cui aveva davvero dormito Dillinger” ha dichiarato Michael Mann. Quando mette la mano e apre la porta, è la stessa maniglia sulla quale Dillinger aveva messo la sua mano”. Little Bohemia porta ancora oggi i segni di quella giornata, come i buchi delle pallottole, le finestre rotte e parte del bagaglio che la gang lasciò fuggendo. Il cinema Biograph, davanti al quale Dillinger viene tradito e ucciso, aveva perso le pensiline per le insegne dei film, ma Mann lo ha fatto restaurare.

Cogliere la realtà circostante, l’anima di un luogo, le luci della città, e con esse la sua essenza, è stata la chiave espressiva degli ultimi lavori di Mann, Collateral e Miami Vice, con cui Nemico pubblico costituisce un’ideale trilogia, e di cui è un ideale prequel. Il rapporto tra la città e il male che vive al suo interno, e da cui è inscindibile, è alla base di tutti e tre i film. E la chiave per rendere tutto questo in immagini è proprio il digitale. Proprio in questo modo, l’unico modo possibile, in Collateral Mann era riuscito a cogliere i colori della notte e le vere luci di Los Angeles: le luci al neon, in primo piano, sfocate, o riflesse su vetri e superfici metalliche in affascinanti riverberi, annegate nel blu notte della città. Los Angeles è una delle protagonista di Collateral, come Chicago è un’assoluta protagonista di Nemico pubblico. E come Miami è protagonista di Miami Vice, discesa agli inferi nelle tentazioni di una città tentacolare, peccaminosa, sensuale e pericolosa. Anche qui i colori della notte sono colti alla perfezione dalla macchina da presa digitale. Pensiamo alla prima scena, al suono di Linkin Park e Jay-Z, nella discoteca, che ci fa capire subito la cifra stilistica del film. Anche in Miami Vice Mann ha scelto la direzione del realismo, operando un taglio netto con l’edonismo pop della serie originale, e cercando di trasmettere le vere azioni della polizia, con cui i protagonisti si sono addestrati prima di girare. Los Angeles, Miami, Chicago. Tre città, le loro luci, la loro aria, i loro uomini. Sempre troppo piccoli di fronte a una città che finisce per schiacciarli. Anche questo è Michael Mann.  

Could this be what triggers the final unraveling of the global warming myth? Is this the beginning of the end for the environmentally hysterical? Since a decade of cooling temperatures hasn’t done the trick, and the fact that there isn’t a stitch of evidence proving that rising CO2 levels cause rising temperatures, could this possibly be what sends this fairy-tale trolly off the rails?

Theoretically, you’d think this is one story that just couldn’t be ignored by the mainstream media. Even the most hard-nosed skeptic would have to concede that this juicy little ditty is alphabet-channel newsworthy.

I must therefore tip my hat to the Washington Post who actually put on its journalism shoes yesterday.

They decided to report on the big computer security breach that resulted in over a thousand e-mails and some seventy-two documents being stolen (and made public) from the University of East Anglia’s Hadley Climatic Research Centre in Britain on Thursday – one of the foremost climate research facilities in the world.

The hacking of a major institution’s computer system is always good for a mention or two on the evening news, but what makes this story so delicious is that it goes beyond the run-of-the-mill cyber-invasion. This is actually an attack on global warming itself – and for doomsday environmental zealots, that’s a shot at the jugular.

The stolen documents (specifically the e-mails) are proving to be rather embarrassing, and quite damning, to those who authored them. And it just so happens that the authors happen to be some of the leading proponents of man-made global warming in all the world.

We’re talking the global warming big boys: James Hansen, Phil Jones, Michael Mann and Keith Briffa (among others).

The words “manipulation” and “deception” come to mind.

From the Washington Post:

While few U.S. politicians bother to question whether humans are changing the world’s climate — nearly three years ago the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded the evidence was unequivocal — public debate persists. And the newly disclosed private exchanges among climate scientists at Britain’s Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia reveal an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies.

In one e-mail, the center’s director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University’s Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” Jones writes. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Isn’t that delightful?

Thus, it makes perfect sense when the believers of a planet on the brink of doom due to man-made global warming look directly into the cameras, hold up the IPCC report, and say there is scientific consensus on the matter. How could there not be when they deliberately leave out the work of others who refute or question it? These are the same hysterical global-warming intellectuals who go out of their way to blackball or shun those with opposing points of view  – or at least those who think more debate is reasonably appropriate. As a result, those who dare to question man-made global warming are omitted from scientific journals and publications altogether.

In other words, if the trouble-making crowd can be pushed off into the scientific hinterlands, they can’t get in the way of forwarding the agenda.

In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal,” Mann writes.

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor,” Jones replies.

Positively incredible.

These are supposed to be scientists, mind you – not a group of pre-teen girls deciding who will or won’t be part of their “club.”

But the Washington Post doesn’t go far enough.

For example, according to Tom Wigley (climate scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research), in an e-mail to Phil Jones, there is a problem with some of the temperature readings from the 1940s. There is a temperature “blip,” as he calls it, that apparently does not conform properly to the man-made global-warming theory. It is problematic enough that adjustments need to be made. The “blip” must be resized.

Although a tad technical in some spots, the gist of the e-mail is clearly understood:

Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip.

I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this.

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.

Silly me, I wasn’t aware that scientists could retroactively adjust data to meet the desired models.

John Hinderacker at the great Power Line blog comments:

This and many other emails convey the impression that these theorists are making the “science” up as they go along, with data being manipulated until it yields the results that have been predetermined by political conviction.

Touché.

And make no mistake about it … this is, indeed, a scandal. Whether or not the rest of the mainstream media decides it is worth their time is another story.

Still, there is a whole lot of information to tap into here: From e-mails suggesting that some data would be better off deleted than subjected to public scrutiny, to (as Rob at Say Anything writes) “attempts to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests aimed at getting some of this information disclosed so that it could be reviewed by objective experts,” this one seems to have legs … or so you’d think.

Of course, if the debate wasn’t already over, this could be real trouble.

-

Needless to say, the biggest news story in the world of global warming in the past week has been the hacking of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit. When the news first broke, the big headline was an email by Phil Jones from 1999 and one damaging line:

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

This line has prompted much debate, with some on the right claiming this is fraud or that it’s proof the global warming alarmists are adding fake data or whatever. This line of thought has been attacked, with Real Climate leading the way:

The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

Others have said it’s just a way to make the data look pretty, or that “trick” is just the natural jargon. Needless to say, the truth is a bit more complicated.

Here’s the gist of it in a simplified manner (a more scientific explanation can be found here. You discover that tree ring length corresponds fairly well with temperature. In other words, you can measure tree ring width, plug it into some equation, and get an average temperature for that year. Now you can keep doing this, going back a couple thousand years, and recreate the temperature profile throughout that time. Hooray!

Only one problem. When you do it for the most recent 30 years or so, you find that the temperature you get out of the tree rings is lower than the actual measured temperature. In other words, tree ring length doesn’t keep increasing with increasing temperature, but instead starts to decrease. So now, your temperature profile starts to curve downward in the 20th century instead of still going up. Alas and alack! What to do?

Well, just cut out the tree ring data at the end and replace it with the actual temperature data. What’s wrong with that? It’s more accurate, right? We should always use the most accurate data, correct? So we use the “trick” of splicing in real data with tree rings in order to “hide the decline” that shows up erroneously with the tree ring data. Perfectly legitimate, right?

No. What happens if you don’t do that? If you don’t do it, then one can plainly see the divergence between tree ring width and temperatures. One can plainly see that the calibration (ie, equation used to convert tree ring width to temperatures) does not hold for the entire range of temperature data you wish to study.

And why is that important? Because some stupid, amateur scientist might look at it and say, “Hey, wait a minute! If your tree ring reconstruction can’t possibly find high temperatures, how do you know there weren’t high temperatures in the past? Maybe there were high temperatures, but the trees didn’t grow that well, just like what’s happening now. So this reconstruction doesn’t actually tell us anything about past temperatures!”

To which the intelligent, establishment scientist replies: “Duh, of course that’s not true. If it were, then we couldn’t scare the public into giving us bazillions in funding.”

And so to avoid the possibility of people correctly recognizing the faults of bristlecone pine reconstructions, an additional data set is included to hide the faults.

That is why it’s dishonest. And while RealClimate claims that everyone knows about this already, the fact is that they not everyone knew about this back then (the email is dated from 1999). This was an attempt to hide the fact that their reconstruction was not robust, and to hide the inevitable conclusion that they couldn’t prove that the MWP did not exist.

Is it fraud? Probably not. Some clues to what they did were probably buried in the fine print. They weren’t completely hiding it (“hiding it in plain site”, as RC calls it, is probably more accurate). But it’s still very, very unethical. Why? Because even though the truth is still available, it’s hiding one of the most important pieces of information possible from the bristlecone pines: the fact that they probably can’t detect warm periods in the past even if they did occur. It’s why they aren’t usually used in reconstructions nowadays.

This email is not a shocking revelation. We’ve known about this for years. However, it does suggest that the original hockey stick authors were aware of what they were doing by “hiding the decline”. It’s just more proof that the politics of global warming have overrun the science.

So all things considered, this particular email is not all that exciting in the overall scheme. What’s more important is the bullying and disrupting of the peer review process. I’m still reading up on all of this, so maybe that’s a post for another time. In the mean time, I’ll direct you to Bishop Hill, who is one of the best writers on chronicling the global warming saga. If you’ve never read his post on Caspar and the Jesus paper, I strongly suggest it. It shows just how corrupted the scientific process has become for global warming.

LONDON (Nov. 21) — Computer hackers have broken into a server at a well-respected climate change research center in Britain and posted hundreds of private e-mails and documents online — stoking debate over whether some scientists have overstated the case for man-made climate change.

The University of East Anglia, in eastern England, said in a statement Saturday that the hackers had entered the server and stolen data at its Climatic Research Unit, a leading global research center on climate change. The university said police are investigating the theft of the information, but could not confirm if all the materials posted online are genuine.

More than a decade of correspondence between leading British and U.S. scientists is included in about 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents posted on Web sites following the security breach last week.

Some climate change skeptics and bloggers claim the information shows scientists have overstated the case for global warming, and allege the documents contain proof that some researchers conspired to manipulate data.

The furor over the leaked data comes weeks before the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen, when 192 nations will seek to reach a binding treaty to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases worldwide. Many officials — including U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon — regard the prospects of a pact being sealed at the meeting as bleak.

Within a decade, summers in the North Pole will be dramatically different: no ice and just an open sea. That is the prediction released Oct. 14 by explorers who have hiked through the area. Here, research vessels on an unrelated expedition break through ice near the North Pole in 2004.

A new report examines the human cost of climate change, which it said causes more than 300,000 deaths per year. The report, released in May, shows the impact of climate change on population displacement, malnutrition and diseases, such as malaria. “Climate change is not something waiting to happen,” said former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

//

In one leaked e-mail, the research center’s director, Phil Jones, writes to colleagues about graphs showing climate statistics over the last millennium. He alludes to a technique used by a fellow scientist to “hide the decline” in recent global temperatures. Some evidence appears to show a halt in a rise of global temperatures from about 1960, but is contradicted by other evidence which appears to show a rise in temperatures is continuing.

Jones wrote that, in compiling new data, he had “just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline,” according to a leaked e-mail, which the author confirmed was genuine.

One of the colleague referred to by Jones — Michael Mann, a professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University — did not immediately respond to requests for comment via telephone and e-mail.

The use of the word “trick” by Jones has been seized on by skeptics — who say his e-mail offers proof of collusion between scientists to distort evidence to support their assertion that human activity is influencing climate change.

“Words fail me,” Stephen McIntyre — a blogger whose climateaudit.org Web site challenges popular thinking on climate change — wrote on the site following the leak of the messages.

However, Jones denied manipulating evidence and insisted his comment had been taken out of context. “The word ‘trick’ was used here colloquially, as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward,” he said in a statement Saturday.

Jones did not indicate who “Keith” was in his e-mail.

Two other American scientists named in leaked e-mails — Gavin Schmidt of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, and Kevin Trenberth, of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Colorado — did not immediately return requests for comment.

The University of East Anglica said that information published on the Internet had been selected deliberately to undermine “the strong consensus that human activity is affecting the world’s climate in ways that are potentially dangerous.”

“The selective publication of some stolen e-mails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way,” the university said in a statement.

Associated Press Writer Meera Selva in London contributed to this report.

- Nemico Pubblico – 2009 – ♥♥♥♥ e 1\2 -

di

Michael Mann

E’ Michael Mann. E si vede. Il realismo che contraddistingue i suoi film in questa sua ultima opera forse trova il compimento e ci porta a sentire e vedere tutto in prima persona. Con gli occhi di uno dei fuorilegge americani più celebri dai tempi della Gran Depressione: John Dillinger. E mantenere il realismo quando si parla di un personaggio così cotroverso come lo è stato il famoso rapinatore di banche degli anni ‘30 non è da poco. Per gli americani di quel tempo Dillinger non era solo un criminale ma per certi versi era anche un eroe che rubava alle banche che erano considerate colpevoli di aver causato la Grande Depressione negli USA. E Mann rispetta quell’ immagine facendo si che il suo attore Johhny Depp assuma questi doppi connotati di eroe e criminale. Contrapponendolo all’ altrettanto ben delineato personaggio di Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale), il cacciatore di criminali che ben rappresenta la nemesi di Dillinger. Mezzo perfetto per trasformare queste parole in opera filmica è l’ utilizzo del digitale che dona costante autenticità, nonostante le sue imperfezioni. Frequenti sono i tallonamenti della macchina da presa ai volti dei suoi protagonisti e i riverberi di luce che si infrangono sull’ obiettivo sottolineando minuto dopo minuto il tempo reale delle azioni. Peccato ancora una volta per i titolisti italiani che hanno deciso di tradurre il plurale americano Public Enemies nell’ italiano Nemico Pubblico che dà quindi la sua massima importanza a Johnny Depp alias John Dillinger, relegando così in sordina Melvis Purvis che invece è considerato anche lui un “Nemico Pubblico”, seppur dall’ altra faccia della medaglia. Se il primo (Dillinger) rappresentà la libertà di colui che non conosce freni e che non appartiene a nessun sistema o schema, il secondo (Purvis) è la sua risposta che vuole bloccarlo e isolarlo facendo di ogni uccisione da lui effettuata un tentativo di arginare Dillinger relegandolo prima o poi a restar solo e allontanandolo da ogni suo complice, amore o amico. Vi sono estremi parallelismi tra l’ opera di Mann e il cinema gangster degli anni ‘30 americano che vedeva in Clark Gable o Gary Cooper l’ estrema manifestazione del criminale di bell’ aspetto romantico e comunque di buone maniere. Ed è come se Mann usufruendo del mezzo digitale voglia segnare una nuova era del cinema gangster, non offuscando la precedente fatta di pellicola e di Black and White ma al contrario inglobandola, come metaforicamente si evince nella sequenza nella quale Hoover (Billy Crudup) decora i giovani G-men che viene fagocitata dallo schermo cinematografico. E’ un vero melodramma Nemico Pubblico nel quale i suoi due protagonisti sono entrambi alla fine costretti a lasciare qualcosa: Dillinger la sua amata ” blackbird” Billie (Marion Cotillard), alla quale sono dedicate le sue ultime parole, e Purvis si lascerà dietro la sconfitta di aver decisamente saputo troppo poco del suo obiettivo (Dillinger), escluso anche dalla conoscenza delle sue ultime parole-testamento. La società di quegli anni è perfettamente specchiata nell’ ambivalenza dei personaggi dell’ opera “Manniana”. Un’ epoca nella quale i mass-media iniziavano a schierarsi sempre dalla parte dei vincitori, preoccupandosi solamente di mettere più carne sul fuoco, e nella quale i soliti potenti dell’ economia avevano causato la Grande Depressione. E la morte finale di Dillinger come una star segna proprio la vittoria di tale economia. Una morte nella quale al centro dello schermo vi è il cadavere del difensore di quel senso disfattista che rappresenta l’ ambivalenza del bene e del male e ai bordi dello schermo pian piano scompare la sagoma di Melvis Purvis, comunque sconfitto da non essere stato il vero protagonista della sua uccisione.

( Dillinger il criminale dal cuore debole)

( E Melvis Purvis sua fredda nemesi)

Imagined of being able to backwards travel in the time carrying with you one of the best high definition camera available on the professional market and, once joints in years 30’s, to begin to resume the moments and vivid colors  of those times. Public Enemies written by Michael Mann, Ronan Bennett and Ann Biderman is drawn from bestseller of Bryan Burrough (the Italian edition published by Sperling Kupfer) and narrates of a country, the States, during the crisis of `the
29, while the bands of brave cold blood’s gangster running with fast car for the cities roads armed of powerful and automatic weapons ,heisting banks and destroying keeping books loans like modern Robin Hood. These will be destined to be confronted with the reaction of Washington and baby FBI with to head a young person and unscrupulous director, Edgar J.Hoover (Billy Crudup) and agent Melvin Purvis (a stoic Christian Bale). A epic as well as bloody-thirsty crash that will carry icone of the imaginary US collective  like the nobleman  John Dillinger (Johnny Deep with an interpretation that goes beyond the reliability of the personage), Pretty Boy Floyd (Channing Tatum) ; Baby Face Nelson (Stephen Graham) behind the slabs or often with their name carved over a tombstone. There is not a nostalgic translation of the facts but the search of the authenticity, of the realism meant also like a refusal of the subjects of conventional beauty (but Polly Hamilton interpreted from Leelee Sobiesky and Marion Cotillard in the role of Billie is splendid) and of every idealization in favour of a more pragmatic approach, often with an accent on the humble life or the quotidianity, with nearly documentaristic resumptions, for being able to us to render tangible which we are observing. This is the type of concept HD avant garde of sonorous visual authenticity/(powerful and defined sounds effects .45 ACP Tommy Gun included) and novellistic to which Michael Mann, collaborating with Dante Spinotti, it has intentional  join for Public Enemies; the dosed use of the classic conceptualized lighting system, typically named Hollywood’s Lighting, that it sees the use of powerful Beebe Night Lights for the nocturnal ambush to the hut of Little Bohemia in the forests of the Wisconsin for giving priority to the use of the practical natural light/already existing in location and available for that determined scene; being full  of nocturnal scenes of action, the conceptual key for this film is given by reading of the shadows from the support types as high definition, totally and positively different regarding if compared to film and this has allowed a dynamic use of the filmic grammar obtaining a modern film with hyper realistic look that does not get lost in romantic classicism and that it succeeds to conserve solid Manns trademarks beginning from the use of music, symphonic and ambient score by Elliot Goldenthal, music and use of the music that removes the breath for how much guessing, as it always happens in all the works of Michael Mann and that I have already wide dealt. Bravo and expert Italian director of photography Dante Spinotti to its fifth hard work with Michael Mann (Manhunter,the Last of the Moichans, Heat and The Insider) composing the film in format 2.40:1 has used for Public Enemies HD camera Sony F23, excellent for sharpness and depth of field (but also the F950 model with T950 adapter) in coupling to the small (but great) Sony EX1 for inner resumptions happened inside of car, using on these supports Lenses Zeiss Digiprimes and zoom Fujinon HAe10×10 (T1.8), while for any scenes shot in super 35mm with film Kodak Vison 3 500T 5219 has been used film cameras ARRI 435, 235 with the splendid optical Cooke S4 nearly to give a tribute to the past of Manhunter – “With digital cameras, there aren’t any steadfast rules, and I believe that gives me a huge amount of freedom,” he concludes. “The medium is romantic, interesting and beautiful, but it also looks real. And there’s so much you can do in post! Film has a certain kind of quality that cannot be matched by digital technology, but at times, the advantages digital has over film are important for the language and the contents of the story you’re telling, and that determines your choice.
Goes to to Colleen Atwood (already costume designer in Manhunter)the task ,does in excellent way because it becomes woven novellistic, to dress the personages of this film, sons of a casting at least fabulous: concept can be condensed with the face of the characther of Charles Winstead (interpreted from Stephen Lang). The production design, carefully splendid, are by Nathan Crowley (Dark Knigh,Batman Begins, Escape from L.A.) while in phase of pre-production the research work in location sees engaged, like always, Bravo photographer Gusmano Cesaretti that is also in dresses of Co-producer. There is who has compared Michael Mann to an author who prepares itself as Rembrandt and executes like Picasso others like Caravaggio that then is transformed in a Kandinsky, but what is the painting if not the main source through which the cinema he expresses himself visually? Interesting and true concept because in observing some they works have understood the visual process of Michael Mann. A visual and novellistic course ,that one of Mann,made by  a identification’s cinema (the scene of the Biograph Theater is a magum opus), revoluzionized  with ALI, stilized from Collateral and Miami Vice where Hid Def is contemporary phenomenon, witness of the change of our way to frame(shot) the images and transported in years 30’s it works to the perfection and that clean our preconcept been born from the repertory of sgranate, dirty images, sometimes sepia or black white images (than Mann it cites with a editing game during the scene of the extradition in Indiana), and far away from the reasoning that who it has lived those times and places has lived them  to colors and in the high definition of our eye.

Story here are Watts Up With That. (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

The details on this are still sketchy, we’ll probably never know what went on. But it appears that University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit has been hacked and many many files have been released by the hacker or person unknown.

This e-mail is one of the ones released:

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@[snipped], mhughes@
[snipped]
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@[snipped],t.osborn@[snipped]
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers, Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit

I wonder how they will explain that.

Hot Air is reporting that CRU admits that these e-mails are genuine:

Controversy has exploded onto the Internet after a major global-warming advocacy center in the UK had its e-mail system hacked and the data published on line.  The director of the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit confirmed that the e-mails are genuine — and Australian publication Investigate and the Australian Herald-Sun report that those e-mails expose a conspiracy to hide detrimental information from the public that argues against global warming.

The Hot Air link has more very suspicious langugage.

Related posts

• Comparison of hockey stick graph data to a larger data set in the same area
• Government-funded research unit destroyed original climate data
• The state of the debate about catastrophic man-made global warming
• Peer-reviewed article in journal Science says solar activity impacts climate
• Famous UN IPCC hockey stick graph is based on cherry-picked data
• Princeton physics professor testifies to Senate about global warming
• Global warming advocates refuse to give their data to skeptics
• Peer-reviewed article in journal Science says prior ice melting caused by solar variation
• Oceans are not warming now
• Polar ice caps are not melting now
• Polar bear populations are not decreasing now
• Global warming is not caused by humans

Blatant scientific fraud and global warming alarmism have been best buddies for quite some time.

But hundreds of emails pilfered from a major British university climate change center are stunning even to those who know what a whopping load of crap global warming is.

The emails are available in an easy-to-digest format HERE.  There are somewhere in the vicinity of a thousand-plus, along with some 72 documents.

A UK Telegraph article slams the whole industry as bogus.  And we learn that some of the “scientists” who took part in these emails were huge names in the bogus industry they created:

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?
By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: November 20th, 2009

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

But perhaps the most damaging revelations  – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:

Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” – Hadley CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. Hadley CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because Hadley CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.

I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.

The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view is now also the majority view.

Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true,it’s a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility which is never likely to recover.

You can’t even begin to imagine what a pure scientific fraud all this global warming crap is.

Let’s take a moment to contemplate the “science” of chief global warming propagandist Al Gore when he appeared on Conan O’Brien’s program [youtube available here]:

CONAN O’BRIEN, HOST: Now, what about … you talk in the book about geothermal energy…

AL GORE: Yeah, yeah.

O’BRIEN: ...to create energy, and it sounds to me like an evil plan by Lex Luthor to defeat Superman. Can you, can you tell me, is this a viable solution, geothermal energy?

GORE: Yeah.

O’BRIEN: …and that is, as I understand it, using the heat that’s generated from the core of the earth …

GORE: It definitely is, and it’s a relatively new one. People think about geothermal energy – when they think about it at all – in terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, ‘cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot …

The problem is that even the earth’s core is only around 2,000-7,000 degrees Celsius (we can’t get to it to measure it precisely).  The whole “several million degree” thing is the blathering idiocy of a blathering idiot.

A blathering idiot who received a Nobel Prize for Science.

This is on top of the fact that Al Gore’s new book pimping global warming relied on photoshopping to artificially “show” the effects of global warming.

And THAT’S on top of the fact that the propaganda film that Al Gore won his Nobel Prize for science in the first place was based on documented exaggerations and lies.

From the Times Online Business section:

An Inconvenient Truth won plaudits from the environmental lobby and an Oscar from the film industry but was found wanting when it was scrutinised in the High Court in London.

Mr Justice Burton identified nine significant errors within the former presidential candidate’s documentary as he assessed whether it should be shown to school children. He agreed that Mr Gore’s film was “broadly accurate” in its presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change but said that some of the claims were wrong and had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”.

In what is a rare judicial ruling on what children can see in the class-room, Mr Justice Barton was at pains to point out that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change.

There were at least nine significant bogus claims contradicted by science in Gore’s Inconvenient Truth.

But that didn’t stop him from receiving a Nobel Prize for it.

The Nobel Prize for Leftwing Propaganda.

When you include the Nobel Prize for Accomplishing Nothing that Barack Obama “won,” you begin to see what an empty suit our chief institutions of leftwing credibility truly are.

But it’s worse than making the Nobel committee or the Nobel Peace Prize a mockery.  What has happened with global warming has made science itself a mockery.

I wrote a couple of articles that expose a lot of these frauds and present the actual legitimate science some time back:

What the Science REALLY Says About Global Warming

What You Never Hear About Global Warming

There are a few truly good scientists out there.  But there are way too many partisan ideologues who are willing to go to any lengths to pass of ideology as science.  And the new “Galileos” are those who stand in the way of liberal secular humanists academics for whom ideological political power and science are one.

The “scientists” who support global warming theory are not scientists, regardless of their degrees or positions.  They are propagandists.  They are political ideologues who seek to exploit their positions to impose economic redistributionism on people who can scarcely afford to make ends meet as it is.

It doesn’t seem to matter how many times these pseudo-scientific fascist frauds are caught lying, fabricating data, making bogus claims, or generally defecating on the principles, methodologies, and ethics of science.  They just keep rolling merrily along as an equally dishonest, ideological, and propagandistic media covers up for them.

And if I may make one more comment: the people who are trying to impose ObamaCare on us are the same sort of people who are using the same sort of deceit.

[Update, November 22] From “IPCC Researchers Admit Global Warming Fraud,” by Rebecca Terrell and Ed Hiserodt:

[In reference to a] New York Times article [which] opined, “The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument.”Climatologist Patrick J. Michaels challenged that position. “This is not a smoking gun, this is a mushroom cloud.” The e-mails implicate scores of researchers, most of whom are associated with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization many skeptics believe was created exclusively to provide evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

Among the IPCC elite embarrassingly, if not criminally, compromised is Phillip D. Jones, a Ph.D. climatologist at the University of East Anglia whose work figured prominently in the IPCC Third Assessment Report of 2001. Jones also contributed significantly to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 (AR4), but he failed to follow through when skeptical investigators asked to review raw data associated with that report. They announced intent to use UK Freedom of Information laws to obtain the data, so Jones sent the following e-mail to one of his collaborators: “Mike, Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise…. Can you also e-mail Gene and get him to do the same?… Will be getting Caspar to do likewise.” The Mike in this message is Michael Mann, professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University, whose influential “hockey stick” graph warning of pending global warming eco-catastrophe was found by a congressional investigation to be fraudulent. In another correspondence about AR4 labeled HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, Jones contacted Mann regarding research critical of their global warming platform. “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” wrote Jones. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Mann received another incriminating e-mail from Dr. Kevin Trenberth, a New Zealander now with the University of Colorado and Head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. “The fact is we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” An incredulous Trenberth simply blamed “our [inadequate] observing system.”  Yet he and his colleagues are now dodging the “Climategate” bullet, indignant that global warming skeptics are supposedly taking their comments out of context. One wonders if they might be referring to a message from Jones who wrote about a statistical “trick” he used to “hide” data. Or perhaps they mean Mann’s reference to climate change skeptics as “idiots.”

.

Questo sondaggio si propone di rilevare il vostro interesse per i diversi argomenti riguardanti l’influenza suina o A/H1N1: attraverso le vostre scelte, verranno stabiliti i punti specifici da trattare nei prossimi articoli. Sono consentiti un massimo di due voti. Il sondaggio si chiuderà martedì 1 dicembre 2009. Grazie per la partecipazione.