posted January 07, 2011 07:57 AM            

"It was a blazing hot summer in Russia this year."...acoustic

Record low temperatures...even in Russia.

Temperatures sink to record low in Russian Far East
Winter weather follies: Winter 2010-2011 http://en.rian.ru/russia/20101224/161913761.html

It's been a record breaking cold winter all over the earth. Even in Cancun where the dummies in the man made global warming religion were paying homage to their little tin god Algore.

“Gore Effect” on Steroids: Six straight days of record low temperatures during COP16 in Cancun Mexico – more coming
Posted on December 10, 2010 by Anthony Watts

The irony, it burns. Do you think maybe Gaia is trying to send the U.N. and the delegates a message? One record low was funny, three in a row was hilarious, a new record low for the month of December was ROFL, but now six straight days of record lows during the U.N. COP16 Global Warming conference? That’s galactically inconvenient. The whole month so far has averaged below normal:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/10/gore-effect-on-steroids-six-straight-days-of-record-low-temperatures-during-cop16-in-cancun-mexico/

"The methane leak from the permafrost could mean something for our greenhouse gases"..acoustic

Are you still a member in good standing with the Man Made Global Warming nuts acoustic?

posted January 18, 2011 08:28 AM            

It seems James Hansen, the nutty NASA..so called scientist prefers undemocratic totalitarian regimes to representative government. Of course, I've always known James Hansen was a nutter and that at the base of the leftist nuts they are totalitarians.

So, James Hansen has now told America and the world just how he feels about America. This nutter has made his living on the backs of American taxpayers all these years...and he prefers the government of Communist China to the United States.

Good thing for Hansen it's not my call...because if it were....I'd impart so much velocity to his sorry ass he wouldn't touch down until he hit Beijing.

MICHAELS: China-style dictatorship of climatologists
NASA's Hansen prefers rule by decree to fight 'global warming'
By Patrick J. Michaels
The Washington Times
6:01 p.m., Monday, January 17, 2011

November's election made it quite clear that the people of the United States do not want to radically change our society in the name of global warming. Pretty much every close House race went to the Republicans, while the Democrats won all the Senate squeakers. The difference? The House on June 26, 2009, passed a bill limiting carbon-dioxide emissions and getting into just about every aspect of our lives. The Senate did nothing of the sort.

The nation's most prominent publicly funded climatologist is officially angry about this, blaming democracy and citing the Chinese government as the "best hope" to save the world from global warming. He also wants an economic boycott of the U.S. sufficient to bend us to China's will.

NASA laboratory head James Hansen's anti-democracy rants were published while he was on a November junket in China, but they didn't get much attention until recently. On Jan. 12, the hyperprolific blogger Marc Morano put them on his Climate Depot site, and within hours, the post went viral. In a former life, Mr. Morano was chief global-warming researcher for Sen. James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican.

According to Mr. Hansen, compared to China, we are "the barbarians" with a "fossil-money- 'democracy' that now rules the roost," making it impossible to legislate effectively on climate change. Unlike us, the Chinese are enlightened, unfettered by pesky elections. Here's what he blogged on Nov. 24:

"I have the impression that Chinese leadership takes a long view, perhaps because of the long history of their culture, in contrast to the West with its short election cycles. At the same time, China has the capacity to implement policy decisions rapidly. The leaders seem to seek the best technical information and do not brand as a hoax that which is inconvenient."

Has this guy ever heard of the Gang of Four? Or the Cultural Revolution, which killed those who were inconvenient? Or the Great Leap Forward, which used the best technical information to determine that a steel mill in every backyard was a good idea?

Mr. Hansen has another idea to circumvent our democracy. Because Congress is not likely to pass any legislation making carbon-based energy prohibitively expensive, he proposed, in the South China Morning Post, that China lead a boycott of our economy:

"After agreement with other nations, e.g., the European Union, China and these nations could impose rising internal carbon fees. Existing rules of the World Trade Organization would allow collection of a rising border duty on products from all nations that do not have an equivalent internal carbon fee or tax.

"The United States then would be forced to make a choice. It could either address its fossil-fuel addiction ... or ... accept continual descent into second-rate and third-rate economic well-being."

The WTO, in fact, has not "ruled" that it can impose environmental tariffs of any kind, much less those of such magnitude that they would destroy the world's largest economy.

Mr. Hansen is just dreaming here. But that's not surprising. He has been very creative over the years.

In 1988, he reportedly told Bob Reiss, author of yet another apocalyptic screed, "The Coming Storm," that in the next 20 years, "The West Side Highway [in Manhattan] will be under water" and, "There will be more police cars" in New York because "well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up."

Well, there are more cops and less crime, and the West Side is high and dry. One out of three isn't bad for baseball, but it is horrendous for science.

In 1988, he testified in front of Congress, showing the temperature forecast for coming decades. He had three emission scenarios: One was labeled "A," which he called "business as usual." It actually underestimated the growth in greenhouse-gas emissions since then. Even with that error, which should have enhanced global warming more than he predicted, observed temperatures fell far short. He predicted 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.3 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming. This was an overestimate of more than 40 of what was observed between then and now.

How about his scenario "B," which assumes "decreasing trace gas growth rates?" That one overestimates warming by a bit less than 40 percent (37 percent, to be artificially exact). Scenario "C" is irrelevant, as it assumed massive cuts in emissions beginning in 1988.

His forecasts of climatic change for nearly the last quarter-century are fantasy, as is his notion that dictators are better than democracy and that our country should be bullied into submission.

posted February 04, 2011 07:53 AM            

Meet the global weirdos. They’re the ones telling you that all the snow outside is proof that it’s getting warmer. Only, they don’t call it “warming” anymore.

No, that was back in the “Earth has a fever” days. Back when Al Gore was predicting that the ice caps were melting, the polar bears were drowning and Manhattan would sink beneath 20 feet of water “in the near future.”

But then something happened. Since 1998, temperatures have been relatively flat. We’ve got more polar bears than ever, and Manhattan is buried under snow. For a planet-roasting crisis that threatened the human race with extinction, there doesn’t seem to be much actual warming.

So then the mantra became “climate change.” The liberals formerly known as “warmists” began predicting that we would experience fundamental changes in our weather. Scientists at the University of East Anglia — the Harvard of climate change — said snow would be “a very rare and exciting event.” Children wouldn’t know what it was.

As for summers, in the wake of Katrina “change-ist” groups like realclimate.org predicted “global warming will make hurricanes even worse in the future.”

What happened? Nothing. Europe has had three winters in a row of snow and cold temperatures. In the Atlantic, “there has been a dramatic decrease in the number of hurricanes in the last five years,” according to meteorologist Art Horn. “The total energy in all hurricanes around the world has plunged since 1993. The opposite of what was predicted.”

So the new fall back is “global weirding.” The site thedailygreen.com has a “Weird Weather Watch” page. The uber-liberal Huffington Post ran a story in August headlined “Global Weirding”: Extreme Climate Events Dominate The Summer.”

“The extreme climate events all across the globe must say something about whether climate change is already upon us,” the HuffPo insisted. “Extreme is the new normal.”

They quote a professor of “environmental studies and politics” from Oberlin College who says, “More hottest hots, driest dries, wettest wets, windiest wind conditions. So it’s all part of a pattern.”

Gore is on board, too. He’s now merely claiming rising temperatures will “create all sorts of havoc, ranging from hotter dry spells to colder winters.”

Not “warming,” but “weirding.” Not “heating,” but “havoc.” Which is how global warming can cause more snow, less snow, no snow, avalanches, heat waves, cold snaps, wetter wets, drier dries, gingivitis, delirium tremens and irritable bowel syndrome  . . . all at the same time!

Global warming — is there anything it can’t do?

Well, the one thing it apparently doesn’t do is help predict the weather. The UK’s Met Office stopped giving seasonal forecasts last year after mis-predicting warmer winters three years in a row. Meteorologists without a warmist agenda like Piers Corbyn and AccuWeather’s Joe Bastardi, on the other hand, continue to pay the bills by making predictions directly contrary to the “weirdos.” Oddly, they don’t have degrees in politics.

For a theory to be scientific, it must be fallible — capable of being proven false. If every weather condition can be used to “prove” global warming simply by being declared “weird,” then it’s not science. It’s a joke.

Which is exactly what the environmental movement has become.

posted February 04, 2011 01:31 PM            

------------------
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted February 04, 2011 02:13 PM            

Lying on applications for Federal Funds is a Federal felony offense. It's also a felony offense at the state level when state funding is at issue.

Yeah juni, history does repeat itself. It's not been all that long ago that some of the very same crackpot scientists were screeching about a "new ice age".

posted February 05, 2011 02:39 AM            

Localized weather doesn't determine global temperatures. The weather where I am is warm for this time of year. It's been warm this week, and will continue into next week.

This is the weather for tomorrow:
Sat 5
High: 69 Low: 53
Mostly Sunny

Wind: N at 12 mph
Precip.: 10%
Humidity: 56%

Except for a few afternoon clouds, mainly sunny. Near record high temperatures. High 69F. Winds N at 10 to 15 mph. http://www.nbcbayarea.com/weather/

And how about this (today's news no less): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41411326/ns/us_news-environment/
There are plenty more articles like this, if you're actually looking for real news.

posted February 13, 2011 08:46 AM            

Hahaha, acoustic wants a "fair" review of man made global warming? Pleeeease acoustic, in what alternative universe do you reside?

While man made global warming religionists were falsifying input data for their computer programs...acoustic was silent...or defended them.

When their computer models failed to predict the cooling trend in progress since 1995, they changed the name of man made global warming to climate change....and acoustic was silent on the hoax or defended them.

While man made global warming religionists were constructing a model of climate history which never existed; a model which omitted the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age...acoustic was silent...or defended them.

While man made global warming religionists were attempting to shut up real climate scientists and have them dismissed from their positions and additionally have them locked out of the peer review process...acoustic was silent...or defended them.

The crackpot so called scientists of the man made global warming religion don't want a level playing field, don't participate in real scientific processes and attempt to shut everyone up who disagrees with their religious views AND...acoustic is either silent or defends them.

Your self serving statement is patently and manifestly false acoustic.

posted February 13, 2011 09:06 AM            

Algore's statements are so out of whack with reality that the IPCC...which has participated in the man made global warming hoax to get control over earth's energy resources, had to issue a statement refuting their high priest Algore.

To the high priest of man made global warming, every tick in the weather or climate is caused by man made global warming and....acoustic has either been silent or defended this utterly ridiculous concept.

Too hot? It's man made global warming.
Too Cold? It's man made global warming.
Just right? It's man made global warming.
Too much rain? It's man made global warming.
Drought? It's man made global warming.
Normal rainfall? It's man made global warming.
Hurricanes? It's man made global warming.
No hurricanes? It's man made global warming.
Blizzards? It's man made global warming.
No snow? It's man made global warming.
Normal snowfall? It's man made global warming.
Irish Potato Famine? It was man made global warming.

IPCC says global warming is NOT to blame for snow

Al Gore took to his blog earlier this month to respond to Bill O’Reilly’s question: “Why has southern New York turned into the tundra?”

Gore happily typed away, blaming global warming for the snow and quoting Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page as his scientific authority.

“As it turns out, the scientific community has been addressing this particular question for some time now and they say that increased heavy snowfalls are completely consistent with what they have been predicting as a consequence of man-made global warming,” Gore wrote.

Unfortunately for Gore and others who have claimed that the snow this winter is a global warming byproduct, their own authorities have said climate change will result in less snow.

Both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have predicted warmer, less snowy winters.

A sampling:

•“Snow season length and snow depth are very likely to decrease in most of North America … except in the northernmost part of Canada where maximum snow depth is likely to increase (Christensen et al., 2007).” (EPA)
•“Decreases in snowcover and increases in winter rain on bare soil will likely lengthen the erosion season and enhance erosion intensity.” (EPA)
•“Rising temperatures have generally resulted in rain rather than snow in locations and seasons where climatological average temperatures for 1961 to 1990 were close to freezing (0 °C).” (EPA)
•“As temperatures rise, the likelihood of precipitation falling as rain rather than snow increases, especially in autumn and spring at the beginning and end of the snow season, and in areas where temperatures are near freezing. Such changes are observed in many places, especially over land in middle and high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, leading to increased rains but reduced snowpacks.” (IPCC)
Some, such as University of East Anglia senior climate researcher, Dr. David Viner, have said that in a few years snow will be scarce, and “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”

So which global warming alarmists are we to believe?

According to skeptics of global warming, such rhetorical shifts show that predictions are not coming to fruition.

Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, chief policy adviser to the Science and Public Policy Institute, told The Daily Caller that since the IPCC is considered the “holy writ” by a majority of global warming alarmists, the IPCC is the place to look to see if predictions sync with data.

“Al Gore is not a scientist … He’s made a lot of money by whipping up scares and frightening children, but he is no longer heeded by anyone who takes this matter seriously. The IPCC is the scientific authority of his side of the case, and it says very plainly you get fewer extreme cold and fewer heavy snow events. That’s what the IPCC says, and if that’s what the IPCC says, then Al Gore has no business trying to say the opposite.”

Meteorologist Art Horn told TheDC that one of the big mistakes people are making is to confuse weather with climate. A couple of snow storms no more disprove global warming than a really hot day confirms the theory.

“Weather is what we wake up to everyday. Climate is the average of weather over a long period of time … So it makes no sense to try to say that a storm, or storms, or hurricanes are from global warming. You cannot say that because what we have seen through history is that the variability of weather is so enormous that there is no comparison.”

So folks, strap on your snow boots, endure the cold, but don’t try to draw conclusions from what you see when you look out the window.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/11/is-al-gore-wrong-on-the-environment-global-warming-is-not-to-blame-for-snow/

posted February 14, 2011 12:09 AM            

quote:

---

Hahaha, acoustic wants a "fair" review of man made global warming? Pleeeease acoustic, in what alternative universe do you reside?

---

I live in the rational universe. How about you?

Everything you've listed is false. Plain and simple. We've been over these things. There's no way for you to smear my name by making false statements after them.

There was no hoax. Changing what they call it hasn't changed what the scientists have found. The medieval warming period was localized. We've been over that. It wasn't global. You've never even made a coherent case for why it would make any difference whatsoever.

Everything you wrote is patently false nonsense. Anyone looking into the subject can find rather easily that you're 100% wrong. One can only guess who you're referring to that you say the ACTUAL climate scientists are trying to shut up.

quote:

---

Your self serving statement is patently and manifestly false acoustic.

---

posted February 14, 2011 09:56 AM            

You live in Never Never Land acoustic and

your self serving statement is patently and manifestly false.

Anyone who wants to see what you've ignored or defended on the subject of the crackpot theory of man made global warming merely needs to read your posts on this thread and these threads.
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum26/HTML/000258.html
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum26/HTML/000272.html

In the meantime acoustic, the real research in the field of climate goes on...by real scientists who are a hell of a lot more concerned about planetary cooling than warming.

It's GIGO acoustic...garbage in, garbage out. That's what happens when fraud, con, hoax and scam artists like Phil Jones, Jim Hansen and Michael Mann input manipulated data into their computer models. Their computer model runs do not and did not predict the cooling we're experiencing now.

In the case of Michael Mann, he's under investigation by the Virginia Attorney General, Kenneth Cuccinelli for making false statements on applications for grant funds and his papers and records have been subpoenaed.

In the case of Phil Jones, he's had to admit there's been no significant warming since 1995!

Clearly, those who have to manipulate their data to substantiate their desired conclusions do not believe in their own theories.

posted February 14, 2011 12:44 PM            

Nice that you've learned to use the search feature, Jwhop, but those threads don't show me losing a scientific debate with you. They can't. You don't produce credible science, so you can't debate the science.

quote:

---

In the meantime acoustic, the real research in the field of climate goes on...by real scientists who are a hell of a lot more concerned about planetary cooling than warming.

---

You don't say, or should I say you don't "link"?

quote:

---

It's GIGO acoustic...garbage in, garbage out. That's what happens when fraud, con, hoax and scam artists like Phil Jones, Jim Hansen and Michael Mann input manipulated data into their computer models. Their computer model runs do not and did not predict the cooling we're experiencing now.

---

Nope. You haven't proven this. Nothing suggests that they've manipulated any data. This "cooling" hasn't been proven either.

quote:

---

In the case of Phil Jones, he's had to admit there's been no significant warming since 1995!

---

We've been over Phil Jones, a man you like to use conveniently as either a target or a justification. I've posted Phil Jones concurrance with the scientists at Real Climate.

quote:

---

Clearly, those who have to manipulate their data to substantiate their desired conclusions do not believe in their own theories.

---

Once again with the utterly unsubstantiated claim of manipulated data.

quote:

---

Legitimate scientists who don't falsify data are more than concerned.

---

posted February 14, 2011 01:07 PM            

In an article titled, "Five Reasons the Planet May Not Be Its Hottest Ever," FoxNews.com sought to debunk the fact that Earth has warmed over the past 30 years, as well as the notion that human activity has contributed to the warming. But Fox largely ignored climate science and botched basic facts in the article, portions of which "are utter nonsense" and "do not make sense" according to climatologists consulted by Media Matters, including one of the skeptics cited by Fox.

Spencer: "No One I Know Seriously Debates That Warming Has Actually Occurred."
Spencer, who contends that the warming trend is natural rather than manmade, further told Media Matters via email, "I love FoxNews, but this was a little sloppy." He added: "We have differing opinions on the cause of warming...no one I know seriously debates that warming has actually occurred...so... ....I think whether 2010 was a record or not is not terrible relevant to the debate" [Ellipses in original]. [Email to Media Matters, 1/26/11]

Spencer Himself Reported That 2010 Was Tied As Warmest Year On Record.
Spencer and John Christy, both of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, reported that according to their data, "2010 finished in a photo finish with 1998 for the warmest year in the 32-year satellite temperature record." They further noted that "both 1998 and 2010 were years in which an El Nino Pacific Ocean warming event raised temperatures around the globe." [Newswise.com, 1/18/11]
http://mediamatters.org/research/201101270013

2010 tied for Earth's warmest year on record
Updated 1/13/2011 1:49 AM

Last year tied with 2005 as the world's warmest on record, according to data released Wednesday by the National Climatic Data Center. Records began in 1880.

The Earth's average temperature in 2010, as in 2005, was 58.12 degrees, which is 1.12 degrees above the 20th-century average of 57 degrees.

The climate center reports that the global land surface temperatures for 2010 were the warmest on record, at 1.80 degrees above the 20th-century average. The global ocean surface temperature for 2010 tied with 2005 as the third-warmest on record, at 0.88 degrees above the 20th-century average.

Several exceptional heat waves occurred during 2010, the center reported, bringing record high temperatures and affecting tens of millions of people. Russia endured an unprecedented two-month heat wave last summer: On July 29, the Moscow Observatory recorded its highest-ever temperature of 100.8 degrees.

Center data show the global average surface temperature has risen more than 1 degree since the start of the 20th century. Much of the warmth occurred in the past three decades. Nine of the Earth's 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 2001, and all 12 of the warmest years have occurred since 1997.

In a separate global temperature report released last week, 2010 finished in a tie with 1998 for the warmest year in the 32-year satellite temperature record, according to John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama-Huntsville (UAH).

USA Today

posted March 09, 2011 04:02 PM            

A federal government inspector general has revealed prima facie proof that the so-called independent inquiries widely if implausibly described as clearing the ClimateGate principals of wrongdoing were, in fact, whitewashes. This has been confirmed to Senate offices. It will not be released to the public for some time because the investigation is ongoing.

The document, an interview transcript, will put an end to the foolish talk of anything resembling a ClimateGate “inquiry” having taken place. It will also invite a real inquiry into the affair. Expect fireworks, as the one such effort, by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, is being fought hysterically by Big Science and Big Academia.

Critically, it also begs questions of Penn State University, which conducted one of the three supposed inquiries into ClimateGate.

The key point is that the Penn State investigators never interviewed a principal who was able to confirm or deny a key charge against “Hockey Stick” lead author of “Hide the Decline” infamy Michael Mann. This individual has now been interviewed, and what he told federal investigators has indicted Mann and Penn State.

The inspector general’s report specifically reveals Penn State’s wagon-circlers to have been at best comically negligent/inept in allowing Mann to not answer the damning charge they were tasked with examining: did he delete or ask others to delete records? At worst, they were complicit in the cover-up.

Simply by interviewing Mann’s colleague Eugene Wahl, PSU would have exposed Mann’s “answer” for what it was (and wasn’t). Such an interview was obviously necessary for any inquiry. Penn State chose not to conduct it, for its own reasons. A federal inspector general has now conducted it. And the result is damning of both Mann and the parties that chose not to interview Wahl.

As background, Phil Jones in the United Kingdom asked Mann, now at Penn State, by email to delete records being sought under the UK’s Freedom of Information Act, and to get a colleague to do so as well:

Mike:
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.

“Gene” is Eugene Wahl, who now works for the federal government.

Mann’s terse reply included in pertinent part:

I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP

Now, from Penn State’s supposed inquiry and exoneration of Michael Mann:

Allegation 2: Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones?

Finding 2. After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data related to AR4, as suggested by Dr. Phil Jones. Dr. Mann has stated that he did not delete emails in response to Dr. Jones’ request. Further, Dr. Mann produced upon request a full archive of his emails in and around the time of the preparation of AR4. The archive contained e-mails related to AR4.

If the above excerpt accurately reflects Mann’s testimony, both Mann’s “answer” and his peers’ acceptance of it ought to raise red flags. Penn State asked Mann and only Mann if he destroyed records or was indirectly involved in destroying records. Mann said only that he did not destroy records. And that did it. Even though Phil Jones asked Mann to instruct Wahl to do so as well.

Allow me to translate this in relevant part:

PSU: This is potentially very grave. We must know: Did you do A or B?

Mann: I did not do A.

PSU: Ah. There we go. It appears there is no evidence he did A or B.

Close enough for academia, I suppose. But spare us the “cleared” tag and the claim to have conducted an inquiry.

Not only is it risible to accept this, but Penn State then chose to not speak with the one person Jones asked Mann to also have destroy records.

So, were Penn State’s investigators staggeringly incompetent, willfully ignorant, or knowingly complicit?

Did Mann merely let investigators so grossly misrepresent what he told them in order to paint him as less culpable than he admitted to them? Did he have some reason to believe they would let him get away with that non-answer?

Does instructing someone to delete records violate any U.S. laws?

Of course, Mann might just say that his colleague is a liar. Get some popcorn.

Regardless of how this evidence particularly indicts Penn State, it offers further troubling evidence about Michael Mann — still vacuuming federal taxpayer money — and his relationship with the truth. Combined with other evasive answers, it’s clear he has lawyered up. Putting aside for the moment how well he did so, we at least now see why.

This begs the same questions of PSU as it does of the UK’s two supposed inquires into ClimateGate, which were also cited as “clearing” the participants. Obviously we know that’s not possible because, if either had bothered to interview Wahl, they’d know what we now know. Wahl says Mann did indeed ask Wahl to destroy records, and Wahl did.

One cannot be cleared if there is no inquiry, and we have proof that no inquiry worthy of the name was conducted. New talking points must be developed, sans the spurious claim that anyone has been exonerated or even that any actual inquiry has been undertaken.

posted March 09, 2011 06:25 PM            

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
The Inspector General
Washington, D.C. 20230

From the article:

"This has been confirmed to Senate offices. It will not be released to the public for some time because the investigation is ongoing."

Do you need someone to tell you what the words "investigation" and "ongoing" mean acoustic?

The hoax, scam and fraud artist Michael Mann of the "Hockey Stick" debacle is in deep doo and so are any other Americans named in those emails who destroyed evidence subject to a FOIA request....because the Inspector General has those emails, knows who they are and has jurisdiction.