The Climategate conspiracists are now blaming each other, with Michael Mann clouting his former friend Phil Jones with his hockey stick:
One of the scientists to whom the emails were addressed, Professor Michael Mann, the Director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University has moved to distance himself from some of the comments in the emails that suggest scientists did not want the IPCC, the UN body charged with monitoring climate change, to consider studies that challenged the view global warming was genuine and man-made.
Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s The World Tonight, Prof Mann said: “I can’t put myself in the mind of the person who wrote that email and sent it. I in no way endorse what was in that email.”
Prof Mann also said he could not “justify” a request from Prof Jones that he should delete some of his own emails to prevent them from being seen by outsiders.
“I can’t justify the action, I can only speculate that he was feeling so under attack that he made some poor decisions frankly and I think that’s clear.”
Prof Mann then argued however that there was “absolutely no evidence” that he too had manipulated data, while he also said “I don’t believe that any of my colleagues have done that”.
THE scientific consensus that mankind has caused climate change was rocked yesterday as a leading academic called it a “load of hot air underpinned by fraud”.
Professor Ian Plimer condemned the climate change lobby as “climate comrades” keeping the “gravy train” going.
In a controversial talk just days before the start of a climate summit attended by world leaders in Copenhagen, Prof Plimer said Governments were treating the public like “fools” and using climate change to increase taxes.
He said carbon dioxide has had no impact on temperature and that recent warming was part of the natural cycle of climate stretching over billions of years.
"If you have to argue your science by using fraud, your science is not valid." Professor Pilmer
Prof Plimer - author of Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, The Missing Science - told a London audience: “Climates always change. They always have and they always will. They are driven by a number of factors that are random and cyclical.”
His comments came days after a scandal in climate-change research emerged through the leak of emails from the world-leading research unit at the University of East Anglia. They appeared to show that scientists had been massaging data to prove that global warming was taking place
The Climate Research Unit also admitted getting rid of much of its raw climate data, which means other scientists cannot check the subsequent research. Last night the head of the CRU, Professor Phil Jones, said he would stand down while an independent review took place.
Professor Plimer said climate change was caused by natural events such as volcanic eruptions, the shifting of the Earth’s orbit and cosmic radiation. He said: “Carbon dioxide levels have been up to 1,000 times higher in the past. CO2 cannot be driving global warming now.
“In the past we have had rapid and significant climate change with temperature changes greater than anything we are measuring today. They are driven by processes that have been going on since the beginning of time.”
He cited periods of warming during the Roman Empire and in the Middle Ages – when Vikings grew crops on Greenland – and cooler phases such as the Dark Ages and the Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1850.
And he predicted that the next phase would cool the planet.
Climate change is widely blamed on the burning of fossil fuels which release greenhouse gases such as CO2 into the atmosphere, where they trap the sun’s heat.
The talks at Copenhagen are expected to find ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally.
But Professor Plimer, of Adelaide and Melbourne Universities, said that to stop climate change Governments should find ways to prevent changes to the Earth’s orbit and ocean currents and avoid explosions of supernovae in space. Of the saga of the leaked emails, he said: “If you have to argue your science by using fraud, your science is not valid.”
The CRU’s Professor Jones has admitted some of the emails may have had “poorly chosen words” and were sent in the “heat of the moment”. But he has categorically denied manipulating data and said he stood by the science. And yesterday he dismissed suggestions of a conspiracy to alter evidence to support a theory of man-made global warming as “complete rubbish”.
But mining geology professor Plimer said there was a huge momentum behind the climate-change lobby.
He suggested many scientists had a vested interest in promoting climate change because it helped secure more funding for research. He said: “The climate comrades are trying to keep the gravy train going. Governments are also keen on putting their hands as deep as possible into our pockets.
“The average person has been talked down to. He has been treated like a fool. Yet the average person has common sense.”
But Vicky Pope, head of Met Office Climate Change Advice, said: “We are seeing changes in climate on a timescale we have not seen before.
“There clearly are natural variations. But the only way we can explain these trends is when we include both man-made and natural changes to the climate.
“We have also seen declines in summer sea ice over the past 30 years, glaciers retreating for 150 years, changing rainfall patterns and increases in subsurface and surface ocean temperatures.”
And as the war of words between the rival camps intensified, leading economist Lord Stern dismissed the sceptics as “muddled”.
Lord Stern, who produced a detailed report on the issue for the Government, said evidence of climate change was “overwhelming”. He accepted that all views should be heard but said the degree of scepticism among “real scientists” was very small.
The Internet is All Over Climategate While the MSM Sleeps Mainstream media ignores massive Internet coverage of Climategate...
By Rich Ord
The mainstream media has its head in the sand again while one of the largest conspiracies the world has ever seen is exposed via Internet media. As most readers have heard by now, years of emails and programming code have been uncovered from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, which is run by the scientists whose research is the basis for the world's belief in man-caused global warming. Their science is also the backbone for a massive global tax proposal on industry which the Obama administration is pushing in Congress right now.
The emails and programming code notes clearly show that the science of anthropological global warming has been a fraud from the beginning. The CRU has routinely adjusted their own algorithm in order to provide the desired temperature result during certain time periods. View and search the raw emails here.
Within the global warming algorithm various programmers have written notes (which is pretty normal in programming code) that detail the deception. Here are some examples:
=====
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline
-- Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have
;mknormal,yyy,timey,refperiod=[1881,1940]
;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
====
>>> Note that all of the above text including the bold text is all actual notes from CRU programmers.
The emails also show a pattern of deception at the highest levels of CRU scientists and illustrate their methods of discrediting other scientists who disagree with their warming orthodoxy. To top it all off the CRU scientists have only now admitted deleting all of their original data leaving just their massaged results which makes peer review impossible.
Amazingly, the U.S. mainstream media including CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, New York Times and the Washington Post have hardly mentioned any of this! This lack of coverage by the MSM lets the Obama administration ignore the issue entirely and continue to push cap and trade legislation that is based on the accuracy of this very data. A week after the data fudging evidence was uncovered President Obama's climate czar, Carol M. Browner stated the Administrations position. "[The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has] been studying this issue for a very long time and agree this problem is real."
Fortunately, the Internet media from Twitter to independent news sites like Politico and RealClearPolitics are covering the issue with the vigor it deserves. The mainstream media has been displaced by the Internet as the discoverer of truth. Of course, the Internet includes mainstream media but it is not controlled by it, and thus no coverups will stay covered for long.
(Update) The head of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) Phil Jones is stepping down pending an investigation by the University of East Anglia.
- Read Statement -
(Update) Man caused global warming may be nothing more than a hoax. The actual temperature readings have been deleted by the CRU making review impossible. A leading academic has now condemned the climate change lobby as “climate comrades” keeping the “gravy train” going. Here's more on that story...
Still no mention of this controversy on the evening news of the major broadcast networks. It's ironic that these same news organizations are in Washington right now discussing the Internet's impact on their business model while they continue not to cover news that the Internet media is covering. For years the major networks have covered global warming as fact -- but now no coverage when there is significant evidence that global warming caused by humans is fiction. Interesting....
(Update) A complete PDF has been produced that succinctly explains Climategate: PDF Doc.
Apparently, the BBC was first to receive the climate files from a whistleblower in the CRU. They actually held the files for a month and did nothing. The whistleblower then uploaded the files to a small Internet board based in the United States which exposed the "fudging" of the data to obtain their desired political result. Amazingly, the Internet Media is still the main source for coverage of this world warming scandal.
The Proof Behind the CRU Climategate Debacle: Because Computers Do Lie When Humans Tell Them To
Dec 3, ’09 7:42 PM
Author Robert Greiner
I’m coming to you today as a scientist and engineer with an agnostic stand on global warming.
If you don’t know anything about “Climategate” (does anyone else hate that name?) Go ahead and read up on it before you check out this post, I’ll wait.
Back? Let’s get started.
First, let’s get this out of the way: Emails prove nothing. Sure, you can look like an unethical * who may have committed a felony using government funded money; but all email is, is talk, and talk is cheap.
Now, here is some actual proof that the CRU was deliberately tampering with their data. Unfortunately, for readability’s sake, this code was written in Interactive Data Language (IDL) and is a pain to go through.
NOTE: This is an actual snippet of code from the CRU contained in the source file: briffa_Sep98_d.pro
view plaincopy to clipboardprint?
1. ;
2. ; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
3. ;
4. yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
5. valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6 ,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
6. if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
7.
8. yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)
;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6 ,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)
What does this Mean? A review of the code line-by-line
Starting off Easy
Lines 1-3 are comments
Line 4
yrloc is a 20 element array containing:
1400 and 19 years between 1904 and 1994 in increments of 5 years…
findgen() creates a floating-point array of the specified dimension. Each element of the array is set to the value of its one-dimensional subscript
F = indgen(6) ;F[0] is 0.0, F[1] is 1.0….. F[6] is 6.0
Pretty straightforward, right?
Line 5
valadj, or, the “fudge factor” array as some arrogant programmer likes to call it is the foundation for the manipulated temperature readings. It contains twenty values of seemingly random numbers. We’ll get back to this later.
Line 6
Just a check to make sure that yrloc and valadj have the same number of attributes in them. This is important for line 8.
Line 8
This is where the magic happens. Remember that array we have of valid temperature readings? And, remember that random array of numbers we have from line two? Well, in line 4, those two arrays are interpolated together.
The interpol() function will take each element in both arrays and “guess” at the points in between them to create a smoothing effect on the data. This technique is often used when dealing with natural data points, just not quite in this manner.
The main thing to realize here, is, that the interpol() function will cause the valid temperature readings (yrloc) to skew towards the valadj values.
What the heck does all of this mean?
Well, I’m glad you asked. First, let’s plot the values in the valadj array.
Artificial Hockeystick Graph
Look familiar? This closely resembles the infamous hockey stick graph that Michael Mann came up with about a decade ago. By the way, did I mention Michael Mann is one of the “scientists” (and I use that word loosely) caught up in this scandal?
Here is Mann’s graph from 1999
mann-hockey-stick-graph
As you can see, (potentially) valid temperature station readings were taken and skewed to fabricate the results the “scientists” at the CRU wanted to believe, not what actually occurred.
Where do we go from here?
It’s not as cut-and-try as one might think. First and foremost, this doesn’t necessarily prove anything about global warming as science. It just shows that all of the data that was the chief result of most of the environmental legislation created over the last decade was a farce.
This means that all of those billions of dollars we spent as a global community to combat global warming may have been for nothing.
If news station anchors and politicians were trained as engineers, they would be able to find real proof and not just speculate about the meaning of emails that only made it appear as if something illegal happened.
Conclusion
I tried to write this post in a manner that transcends politics. I really haven’t taken much of an interest in the whole global warming debate and don’t really have a strong opinion on the matter. However, being part of the Science Community (I have a degree in Physics) and having done scientific research myself makes me very worried when arrogant jerks who call themselves “scientists” work outside of ethics and ignore the truth to fit their pre-conceived notions of the world. That is not science, that is religion with math equations.
What do you think?
Now that you have the facts, you can come to your own conclusion!
Be sure to leave me a comment, it gets lonely in here sometimes.
The Washington Times
Friday, December 4, 2009
EDITORIAL: Global-warming theology
Belief in global warming had long had a tinge of theology about it, a form of cultism that adherents and defenders elevated to a holy crusade.
Any who questioned the orthodoxy were branded as heretics. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said that climate-change skepticism is "treason" and exhorted that "we need to start treating [skeptics] as traitors." In 2007, the Weather Channel's Heidi Cullen said that meteorologists who were skeptical of man-made global warming should be decertified. The e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit reveal systematic attempts by high priests of this religion to silence scientists who disputed their rigged findings.
The purveyors of the global-warming theology certainly benefited. They enjoyed professional success, received millions of dollars in grants, had influence in policy circles, were invited to international conferences and found personal validation and fame. Never before had it been sexy to have "climate scientist" on your resume.
Proper science unlocks secrets; it does not create them. The scientific method is a social enterprise and requires openness to function properly. Data must be freely available and methodologies subject to strict scrutiny in order to assess whether results can be verified, reproduced and subjected to reliability tests. There is no reason to trust any results based on hidden data and some very good reasons to distrust them. This is the gist of a prospective lawsuit against NASA by Christopher C. Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which calls on the space agency to produce the climate data it has been keeping under wraps. These data are not classified information and should be part of the public record. NASA's stonewalling is suspicious and could augur that another scandal is brewing.
Global warming was an academic Ponzi scheme. Its leading proponents were mini-Madoffs, peddling a vision of global catastrophe to gullible activists, bureaucrats and policymakers. The vision was so vast, the fear it inspired so pervasive, that it seized popular imagination, aided ably by hucksters like former Vice President Al Gore and his science-fiction feature film "An Inconvenient Truth." But like any Ponzi scheme, global warming only worked if everyone kept investing and no one looked at the books. Once the truth came out - of manipulated findings, phony data, rigged peer-review processes and intimidation of skeptics - the scheme began to collapse.
Yet even as the edifice comes down, the adherents of the orthodoxy say that there is nothing to see, that this is all a distraction from the business at hand, that there is still no time to lose, full steam (or solar power) ahead. But it is far too late for that. The veil has been pierced, the myth revealed, the scales have fallen from the people's eyes. The pagan priests are fleeing the temple, their sacred idols are being pulled down, their holy works renounced. Their god, finally, is dead.
Their God will finally be dead when we get the liars to shut the hell up! The climatechange cult members are still blathering on about their religion.
HANG 'EM HIGH!!
Under the definition of "Terrorism" as per the Homeland Security Act, the proponents of the scam are all terrorists. Using fear for political change covers it.
Destruction of raw data to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests was “a criminal act,” says Congresswoman
Rep. Miller Calls For Climategate Investigation 031209top3
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Representative Candice Miller has called for a Congressional investigation into the climategate scandal, saying that the deliberate destruction of data by scientists intimately involved in the UN IPCC in order to avoid FOIA requests was a “criminal act” and blows away the whole foundation for the cap and trade legislation.
Miller made the case that climategate completely undermines the cap and trade legislation passed by Congress earlier this year, which would lead to massive outsourcing of jobs, redistribution of wealth to other countries as well as devastating the economy and states that rely on coal for electricity production, such as Michigan, for whom Miller is a representative.
“If cap and trade were to pass, Michigan’s economy would be devastated, but we were told that it had to happen because the alternative is worse,” said Miller, before discussing climategate, noting that the content of the leaked emails has “blown away the scientific foundation for the man-made global warming theory.”
“These troubling emails show that some of the most respected and quoted and published scientists have used “tricks” to manipulate data, refused to release the data that is the foundation for their research, and they’ve attempted to silence any critics of their hypothesis, and even expressed dismay that they could not explain recent cooling taking place across the globe,” said Miller.
Miller then quoted the most infamous emails including Phil Jones’ “hide the decline” passage and Kevin Trenberth’s email, where he states, “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.” Trenberth was a lead author of the 1995, 2001, and 2007 IPCC Scientific Assessment of Climate Change.
“An inconvenient truth that temperatures were declining required a “trick” to hide it,” noted Miller.
Speaking on the subject of how the emails expose how warmist scientists engaged in academic witch hunts to prevent studies they disagreed with from appearing in peer-reviewed journals, Miller summarized;
“Call those who disagree with their hypothesis “cranks” because they have not been published in peer-reviewed journals and then when they are – to discredit the journal – in other words Mr. Speaker – the fix is in.”
Miller then highlighted the deliberate destruction of raw climate data on behalf of the CRU scientists and their colleagues.
“The leader of the CRU for years refused to release source data and now they claim that the data was lost – you know it sounds to me like the old elementary excuse – ‘the dog ate my homework’ – that excuse didn’t work for 3rd graders and it’s certainly unacceptable for scientists who are asking us to totally upend our economy,” said Miller.
Speaking on the subject of data that was deliberately destroyed in order to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests, Miller stated, “that is not just bad science, that is a criminal act.”
“Congress needs to hold hearings to this matter, we need to investigate these very troubling revelations – if we are to make policy that will profoundly impact our nation, that policy must be made on facts, not on articles of faith or manipulated data,” concluded Miller.
Watch the video of Miller’s speech below, followed by Senator Inhofe’s comments on climategate made yesterday.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 10:54 am Post subject:
item8 wrote:
Is NASA hiding its climate data, too?
Quote:
Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s.
“I assume that what is there is highly damaging,” Mr. Horner said. “These guys are quite clearly bound and determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this.”
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 11:07 am Post subject:
item8 wrote:
An analysis of the infamous code which was written to fiddle the data. Interesting to hear how the liars spin this one.
[/quote]
The liars are trying yet again to spin what is meant by 'decline', and sending out their uncomprehending messengers, who, just like the insane seem to believe that they'll get a different result if they repeating the same thing long enough. Which is exactly what you're doing, again.
The "decline" has been clearly explained in its correct context twice already in this thread, in simple terms. As I'm not at all confident in your ability to count back in the posts, here it is again for the third time:
chek wrote:
The tree data agreed with th einstrumental record pretty well since 1850, but started to go haywire around 1960. So what changed?
"The reason that the post 1960 tree records diverge is because AGW is stressing them at a rate that has not been seen before in the record.
"The existence of a subset of trees with consistently positive climate-growth relationships within the majority of trees with changing climate growth relationships argues against any radiative explanations, such as “global dimming” or an increase in UV-B radiation as the main causes of the “divergence effect” in northern Alaska, since the impact should be evident in all trees and not just some trees at a site.
Also, our results do not support the hypothesis that the use of
differing temperature variables is the 25 main cause for the
“divergence effect” in northern Alaska.
Instead, our results indicate that rapid climate warming might lead to a break-down of the consistent climate-growth relationship in large parts of the tree population."
Wilmking 2008 -
http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/4/741/2008/cpd-4-741-2008.pdf
"On annual, decadal, and probably even centennial time-scales, tree-ring data are demonstrably reliable palaeoclimate indicators, but where the focus of attention shifts to inferences on century and longer
time-scales, the veracity of inferred change is difficult to establish.
Furthermore, recent analyses of large regional-scale growth patterns and absolute tree growth changes over recent centuries strongly suggest that anthropogenic infuences are increasingly challenging our assumptions of uniformitarianism in tree growth climate responses.
While this clearly represents a problem in interpretation, it also provides challenging opportunities for disentangling different tree-growth signals".
Looks to me that the deniers just gone done shot themselves in the foot, before sticking the still bleeding stump in their mouth.
And not for the first time.
Just ask Mr warming/cooling banjoboy v.8.0.
_________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 11:10 am Post subject:
item8 wrote:
AD 2009 ChektheLiar predicts armageddon if you refuse to pay homage to Saint Al the Gore and give him all your money.
You're your own incontinent self-uncontained little shiitstorm, aincha banjoboy.
With no idea how to behave out in public.
All you have to do now is prove that I've ever said anything even remotely like that. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 11:21 am Post subject:
It looks like the deniers have recognised that they've lost any semblance of the scientific argument, and have been just going after dirt, even though the CRU hack has turned up nothing to their advantage.
"An alleged series of attempted security breaches at the University of Victoria in the run-up to next week's Copenhagen summit on climate change is evidence of a larger effort to discredit climate science, says a renowned Canadian researcher.
Andrew Weaver, a University of Victoria scientist and key contributor to the Nobel prize-winning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says there have been a number of attempted breaches in recent months, including two successful break-ins at his campus office in which a dead computer was stolen and papers were rummaged through.
"The key thing is to try to find anybody who's involved in any aspect of the IPCC and find something that you can ... take out of context," Mr. Weaver said, drawing a parallel to the case of British climate researcher Phil Jones, who was forced to step down this week after skeptics seized upon hacked emails they allege point to a plot to exaggerate the threat of climate change.
"People don't like it, so they try to discredit it, and the way they try to discredit it is by attacking the individual responsible for it," Mr. Weaver said.
University of Victoria spokeswoman Patty Pitts said there have also been attempts to hack into climate scientists' computers, as well as incidents in which people impersonated network technicians to try to gain access to campus offices and data. However, those incidents took place at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, she said -- an Environment Canada facility located at the university. As such, Environment Canada would be the investigating agency.
"They have a completely separate computer system from ours," Ms. Pitts said.
The office break-ins took place late last year, Mr. Weaver said, while the other alleged hacking attempts at his colleagues' offices -- all unsuccessful -- took place within the past few months.
Both campus police and the Saanich Police Department helped probe the office break-ins, Ms. Pitts said, but to date, no suspects have been identified nor arrests made.
Sujata Raisinghani, a spokeswoman for Environment Canada, said while the agency has no evidence of "successful" hacking attempts at the climate modelling centre, it cannot comment on "threats against its infrastructure" for security reasons.
"Environment Canada routinely monitors its infrastructure and takes necessary precautions to protect its information assets," she said.
Mr. Weaver believes the timing of the alleged attempts to breach security is linked to the coming Copenhagen summit. In the Jones case, he blasted the media for being sucked in by the minutiae of old emails rather than trying to determine who is ultimately responsible for what he called an agenda-based campaign to discredit climate science.
"The real story in this is, who are these people and why are they doing it?" Mr. Weaver said, noting the Jones controversy was not the result of a "lucky hack" days before the Copenhagen conference. "They're trying to find anything. They don't care what it is."
He believes the campaign is driven by the fossil-fuel industry, citing "a war for public opinion."
[size18]Climategate: Michael 'Piltdown' Mann throws Phil Jones out of the sleigh as panic grows[/size]
By Gerald Warner UK Last updated: December 4th, 2009
When a pending investigation provokes panic among suspected wrongdoers, the first thing to collapse is any sense of solidarity in their ranks. A week ago you could not have put a fag paper between Michael “Piltdown” Mann, of hockey stick notoriety, and Phil Jones, the then director of the Creative Research Unit at the “University” of East Anglia. In those confident days, the communal line was that some hackers had stolen university property, Plod would soon be on the case, so move on, please, nothing to see here.
What a difference a week makes. The news that Phil Jones has “stood aside” from the CRU while he is investigated, however sympathetically, has earned him leper status in AGW circles. The disgraced director has the smell of death about his career: the other goats in the herd sense that he is the one marked for sacrifice and are turning away, bleating, to distance themselves from the doomed scapegoat.
Mann, whose own token investigation by the authorities at Pennsylvania State University already looks like the biggest whitewash job in America since Tom Sawyer duped his friends into painting his fence, has clearly taken one look at the career prospects of Jones the Mail and decided “I’m outta here!”
Mann, in his new role as champion of academic integrity, has told BBC Radio 4: “I can’t put myself in the mind of the person who wrote that e-mail and sent it. I in no way endorse what was in that e-mail.” (This is the classic Clinton defence: “I did not have climate collusion with that scientist… It all depends what the meaning of the word ‘trick’ is…) In case Professor Jones needs that barely coded message in plain, it deciphers as: “You’re on your own, Phil.”
As for Jones’s request that e-mails be deleted: “I can’t justify the action, I can only speculate that he was so feeling under attack that he made some poor decisions frankly and I think that’s clear.” (Watergate, Act I, Scene 2 Tricky Mickey begins to feel the heat.) Mann protested that there was “absolutely no evidence” that he had manipulated data. His one concession to any kind of vestigial solidarity with his co-accused was: “I don’t believe that any of my colleagues have done that.” Yeah, we hear what you are saying.
Beyond the phenomenon of collaborators falling out, it seems from these remarks that the great Hockey Stick guru is still in denial on a point of greater substance. It has not fully dawned on him that the scandal has moved on from the introductory issue of the e-mails to the more significant material in the computer data itself, currently being joyously deconstructed in America, coast to coast, by every pointy-head and computer geek in the mighty Republic. That is where the ticking cobalt bomb lies.
With the data from East Anglia CRU, by common consent, now hopelessly discredited, the standing challenge to climate alarmists is this: what institution contributing to the IPCC reports does not have its data cross-fertilised, contaminated and thus totally compromised by input from East Anglia? Which one? Now that an increasingly panicky Michael Mann has thrown Phil Jones out of the sleigh, he should not delude himself that this act of cynical disloyalty will enable him to shake off the pursuing wolf pack.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 12:02 pm Post subject:
item8 wrote:
With the data from East Anglia CRU, by common consent, now hopelessly discredited
LOL.
The smear campaign hasn't worked except on the credulous banjo constituency who'll believe what they're told without bothering to check, so it's hardly 'by common consent', more like 'wishful thinking' but keep dreaming.
All you've got are the same old suspect right wing sources repeating, repeating and repeating some more, hoping to create an impression on the soft. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:40 pm Post subject:
TonyGosling wrote:
You can talk Chek.
chek wrote:
You're your own incontinent self-uncontained little shiitstorm, aincha banjoboy. With no idea how to behave out in public.
This is your final warning.
Play the ball not the man.
I'm pretty damn sure I did, in my post at 11.10 asking for some proof.
chek wrote:
All you have to do now is prove that I've ever said anything even remotely like that.
And then half an hour later at 11.46, more copy'n'paste spam arrived.
I didn't say anything this time, because we all know we'd only be getting more of the same from banjo v.9/v.10/v.11 etc.
As I said before, if you'd prefer a forum that isn't interested in real information and is a safe and uncritical haven for spamming right wing nonsense unhindered (oh look - he's spammed a Senator Inhofe video, how sweet), just say and I'll leave now. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
You're your own incontinent self-uncontained little shiitstorm, aincha banjoboy. With no idea how to behave out in public.
This is your final warning.
Play the ball not the man.
I'm pretty damn sure I did, in my post at 11.10 asking for some proof.
chek wrote:
All you have to do now is prove that I've ever said anything even remotely like that.
And then half an hour later at 11.46, more copy'n'paste spam arrived.
I didn't say anything this time, because we all know we'd only be getting more of the same from banjo v.9/v.10/v.11 etc.
As I said before, if you'd prefer a forum that isn't interested in real information and is a safe and uncritical haven for spamming right wing nonsense unhindered (oh look - he's spammed a Senator Inhofe video, how sweet), just say and I'll leave now.
Dont leave Chek, you keep me entertained with your unfaltering belief in your new-age religion. What is posted on this thread by others is in no way `Spam` just because it doesnt fit with your dogma. All the posts that i have seen have been on subject.
Abandon your lucrative carbon-scheming, admit there was never a ‘consensus’ and give back the Nobel Peace Prize
Aaron Dykes, JonesReport.com, December 3, 2009
Its Over, Al Gore.Al Gore has just cancelled a high-profile appearance at the upcoming Copenhagen climate change conference only days after ‘ClimateGate’ revelations cast doubt on the legitimacy of the scientific ‘consensus’ ("hiding the decline" is not scientific in any respect). Just days ago, CRU director Phil Jones stepped down from his position at East Anglia University.
Further, Gore has been confronted by We Are Change and other groups at book signing events everywhere he goes– and apparently his only response to charges of fraud is to unleash his goons to drag out dissenters. Sounds like Eco-fascism to me. It’s easy to reach consensus when opponents are barred from the conversation (see video below).
The would-be ‘EcoProphet’ and media-darling Al Gore has been thoroughly discredited– along with the science-imposters of the highly-politicized IPCC — and now he is being prominently challenged by rising opposition to the Copenhagen carbon agenda. Lord Monckton has even called for Gore’s arrest.
Gore also apparently made a fool of himself during an appearance with Conan O’Brien a few days ago, as he tried to push an impractical subterranean geothermal solution. Countless papers across the country have ridiculed his appearance, including headlines such as "Just How Stupid is Al Gore, Anyway?" in the Examiner.com, The Hill’s "Earth to Al Gore" and "Gore Pushes ‘Global Warming Scam’" in the Sioux City Journal.
Even the left-leaning Jon Stewart jabbed at "Poor Al Gore" on the popular Daily Show, mocking that "global warming [has been] debunked via the Internet YOU invented."
Former Vice President Al Gore– after decades of trying to censor free speech in rock music, pretending to invent the Internet and making phony promises that NAFTA ‘is good for America’– has been revealed not to be a friend of the earth, but, cynically, to be on schedule to become the ‘First Carbon Billionaire’ via his Goldman Sachs-partnered carbon trading empire (including Generation Investment Management, LLP and other firms).
featured stories Its Over, Al Gore.Al Gore, it’s time to abandon your lucrative carbon-scheming, admit there was never a scientific ‘consensus’ and give back the Nobel Peace Prize, too.
Personally, I say you can keep the Oscar, as ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ is a veritable masterpiece in propaganda, though clearly the title and thrust of the film is almost completely deceptive. Your accolades can’t shake off the fact that the link to hurricanes & dead polar bears is false or that C02 levels follow temperature rises, not the other way around.
Arrogantly, you have refused to acknowledge the impact of the sun and volcanoes on earth’s climate– proverbial white elephant(s) that outmatch man-made anything in magnitudes unscalable by even the heights of human greed and consumption.
We have seen you throw fits in Congressional committee hearings on "Climate Change" and witnessed your infantile "heavy breathing" over the microphone when points of opposition were raised by Congressmen such as Rep. Scalise. Heavy breathing and indignant sighs were the tactics you used in the face of adversity in the early 1990s when you debated Ross Perot on NAFTA.
Al, you have had the audacity to challenge the very existence of your critics. You acted in concert with the IPCC, who readily booted out any and all of its scientific dissenters while you denied that any credible sources (including some 31,000 scientists and academics) disagreed with anthropogenic global warming. When ‘warming’ didn’t work, you took part in re-branding the effort as "climate change."
So please Gore, just stop. The debate is over, when it comes to your legitimacy in the public forum. Even the corporate-controlled media can no longer ignore the scale of your deception. In earlier days of American history, you would likely have been tarred-and-feathered.
You should have left the scene after leaving office as Vice President. Now the world knows you are a treasonous fraud working to enrich yourself, undermine U.S. sovereignty, bind the peoples of the world under outrageous cap & trade regulations and pursue "global governance."
If you now find that you have egg on your face, your tail between your legs or the smug smell of B.S. on your breath, it is because free humanity can see that the Eco-Emperor has no clothes (like a few other leaders I can think of). Canceling your events and running for cover was the right move. America has every right to regard you as an enemy.
Just don’t stop running, or history may recognize you for the villain you are. Like a snake-oil charlatan from a Mark Twain novel, it’s time to skip town before the townspeople catch up to you. The best advice I can offer is to recognize when you are beat, and get the hell out of Dogde.
By now we know that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory has been built on a mixture of hype and massaged data. Various carbon tax schemes have been put forward, even unprecedented proposals for a world wide taxation authority to be overseen by the UN. Does it follow that the primary agenda behind the fraud was implementing these new taxes, or were these proposed tax schemes secondary and part of a proclivity on the part of the state to seize any opportunity to enhance revenue?
In the three decades since AGW was made into a political tool by Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative Party, tax laws have been “reformed” many times in Britain, as well as other Western nations dominated by the AGW meme. Margaret Thatcher and her Conservative Party were known for their opposition to social leveling through taxation. Reduction of public services, combined with hectoring the disadvantaged about self reliance, were hallmarks of British politics through the 1980’s and beyond. In Europe and North America, today’s overall level of taxation is not higher than that prevalent in 1979.
In Britain and the US, governments have been able to utilize the issuance of sovereign debt to increase military budgets while at the same time reducing capital gains and corporate tax rates creating an era of “borrow and spend” growth for the state sector. In the US, the higher income tax brackets have come down while middle class employees have seen increased social security deductions from their paychecks. These revenues were then “borrowed” by the general fund and in fact replaced the revenues lost due to the reduction of corporate taxes.
The burden of financing government spending has been increasingly shifted to the median wage earner and away from the investor and high income earner. Adoption of a tax collection system based on the consumption of energy would seem to fit into this general pattern, since working people spend a larger portion of their earnings on energy, and goods derived from energy, than do the wealthy. However, this outcome could be easily achieved by implementing a flat tax on income or a national sales tax. The rationale used to promote the flat tax is much simpler and would have been more likely to succeed than pushing the AGW carbon tax through fraudulent scaremongering. Right now a national sales tax would be politically far easier to implement in the US.
Since the 1970’s we have seen capital controls lifted allowing for the free movement of capital through most of the world. New tax credits and deductions came into existence which were, in fact, incentives for multinational corporations to shift their operations from industrialized nations to the third world. Lower corporate tax rates could be found in the third world while profits were repatriated at favorable rates. This enabled the shifting of production, and later services, to the third world through tax policies. The Kyoto protocol looked suspiciously similar to these tax policies in that it also created an advantage for the deployment of capital in low wage nations.
A “free trade” regime without tariff barriers would allow for the hyper-exploitation of third world labor while at the same time driving down first world labor costs. But due to the combined competitive disadvantages of poor infrastructure, inexperienced workforces, and transport costs, as well as the necessity of writing off stranded production assets in the developed nations, corporations based in the advanced economies demanded that their governments finance the restructuring of the global economy. Lower labor costs just couldn’t compensate for the disadvantages of moving to China or India, at least not until infrastructure was improved and workforces were trained. Without government assistance offshoring corporations would fail to compete in the marketplace with established industry at home. This motive, providing advantages to investment in the developing nations, is more plausible than the commonly assumed notion that the motive behind the AGW fraud was an excuse to raise taxes on consumers. There is a weakness in this proposition that is similar to the weakness described above regarding carbon taxes though, governments could have aided their corporations through tax advantages without all the complexity and risk involved in AGW fraud.
Yet, there is another motive that is much more certain than either of the above possibilities, even more certain than the profits that Goldman Sachs stood to gain from carbon credits trading schemes. To understand this motive we must return to the time when the AGW meme was first promoted. Three Mile Island had recently been shut down following a near melt down. Unknown quantities of radioactive material were released across a vast area of Pennsylvania. 2,400 lawsuits were filed for death or disease suffered by family members which were ultimately denied access to federal courts. In the US, applications for construction of new nuclear power plants had a zero chance of approval by local authorities. The nuclear industry had come to a standstill. At the same time national policy makers, in conjunction with the military industrial complex, wanted to maintain a dynamic nuclear industry that included ongoing mining, milling, enrichment, research and development as well as a large pool of personnel with nuclear expertise. In fact, Thatcher’s situation was particularly strained in that she wanted to discharge tens of thousands of coal miners, replacing them with the politically poisonous nuclear power plants. This feat would require an overriding fear, something that calls for the public to acquiesce and reserve their strong objections. There would be no way to sell such policies to the public without resorting to a paradigm changing ruse, one that defines any dissidence as a danger to the safety of society. AGW would provide that cover. In fact, it is hard to imagine any other paradigm change that could have subverted the environmentalist opposition to the nuclear industry.
If the AGW theory could be planted within a co-opted or deceived environmental movement, general acceptance of the alarmism would be seen as a victory for the environment despite the fact that CO2 is not actually a pollutant. The din of propaganda would be constant until a state of emergency appeared imminent. Nuclear power plants would be presented as the way out while the absence of any solution for nuclear waste disposal would be ignored. The high financial cost of the nuclear facilities would be absorbed later by rate payers while the government would underwrite the investor’s risks.
The AGW Svengali, Al Gore, is no stranger to promotion of the nuclear industry. Since the late 70’s, he has been outspoken in support of new reactors, defending the aborted Clinch River Breeder Reactor, which was was scheduled to produce weapons grade plutonium, to the bitter end. Representation of nuclear interests is actually a Gore family tradition going back to the industry’s foundation. Keith Harmon Snow reports:
A 1957 study by the Brookhaven National Laboratory estimated “the consequences of a very large reactor accident at a hypothetically small nuclear plant near a large city” at 43,000 injuries, 3,400 deaths and $7 billion in 1957 losses. Congress passed the “Gore Bill” of 1956, championed by then U.S. Senator Albert Gore (Sr.) of the pro-nuclear Gore dynasty. This became the Price Andersen Act — reauthorized by Congress again in 2002 – shielding the industry from significant liability for any major nuclear accident. The 1989 Presidential Commission of Inquiry into Catastrophic Nuclear Power Accidents determined that private nuclear corporations would be unlikely to survive unless the federal government insured the industry against such “unexpected and unknown” potential liabilities as the Bhopal disaster (Union Carbide), Agent Orange (Dow) and the Dalkon Shield.
To better appreciate the imperative of maintaining the nuclear industry one must acknowledge the tenuous hold on power that the Western elites possess. The global mass of humanity have little interest in the perpetuation of the existing power structure. While it is possible for a minority to rule over the majority, without an overwhelming technological advantage, military dominance is too costly both in lives and finance. Weapons of mass destruction have provided the ultimate terror instrument necessary to check organized challenges to military supremacy. This was why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were obliterated. Pax Americana arose from the annihilation of non-combatants. The capability of mass murder is why some nations have seats on the UN Security Council with veto power while others have one vote in the General Assembly. Maintenance of this disparity in destructive power is essential to the continued dominance over the non-nuclear nations according to Peter Phillips:
The U.S. Government is blazing a trail of nuclear weapon revival leading to global nuclear dominance. A nuke-revival group, supported by people like Stephen Younger, Associate Director for Nuclear Weapons at Los Alamos, proposes a “mini-nuke” capable of burrowing into underground weapon supplies and unleashing a small, but contained nuclear explosion. This weapons advocacy group is comprised of nuclear scientists, Department of Energy (DoE) officials, right wing analysts, former government officials, and a congressionally appointed over-sight panel. The group wants to ensure that the U.S. continues to develop nuclear capacity into the next half century.
The US nuclear energy industry is overseen by the Department of Energy, which also oversees the nuclear weapons complex through the National Nuclear Security Administration. The reliable lifespan of the current nuclear arsenal is measured in decades. Due to the untested decay characteristics of plutonium it is possible that much of the present arsenal could become unserviceable with little advance warning. The existence of a robust nuclear industry is a prerequisite for new weapons production capability which may be the main factor in Energy Secretary Chu’s strident support for a new generation of nuclear power plants.
AGW has been instrumental in the resurrection of nuclear power in the US and Britain. Seen in this light the AGW fraud is not surprising. The mass collusion of lies is actually a normal occurrence when “national security” is perceived to be involved. Institutions and foundations are can be relied upon to perform their roles. Entire industries conform to the dominant anticipated cap and trade system. Other nations have been co-opted or pressed into accepting the AGW meme. One only has to examine the warmongering lies about Iraqi WMDs or Iranian nuclear weapons programs to put the AGW fraud into perspective.
Climategate Investigator Is Member Of Vehemently Pro-Man Made Global Warming Organization
IPCC and establishment lackey Russell set to whitewash email scandal
Paul Joseph Watson, Prison Planet.com, Friday, December 4, 2009
A civil servant who is a member of one of the most vehemently pro man-made global warming advocacy organizations in Europe which also has direct ties to the IPCC has been handed the job of whitewashing the investigation into the University of East Anglia, while absurdly billing himself as impartial and unconnected to climate science.
Meanwhile, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has ludicrously announced that it will conduct its own investigation into the climategate scandal, despite the fact that the suspects involved have intimate ties to the IPCC, with one of the primary scientists accused of manipulating climate data being a lead author of the 1995, 2001, and 2007 IPCC reports.
“The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading body for assessing climate change science,” reports the Daily Mail.
IPCC chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri told the BBC the claims were serious and he wanted them investigated.
“We will certainly go into the whole lot and then we will take a position on it,’ he said.”
“We certainly don’t want to brush anything under the carpet. This is a serious issue and we will look into it in detail.”
Having the IPCC investigate climategate would be like Ken Lay heading up the Enron enquiry.
One of the primary climategate suspects, Kevin Trenberth, is a lead IPCC author, having been influential in crafting the 1995, 2001, and 2007 IPCC reports.
Professor Phil Jones, who infamously wrote of the need to “hide the decline” in global warming, is also a primary IPCC contributor, having been in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports.
In addition, another climategate suspect, Michael Mann, was the creator of the debunked “hockey stick” graph, which was “Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher than they are today.”
There is little pretense about the fact that the UN will merely absolve its own scientists of blame, the larger scam is the notion that civil servant Sir (Alastair) Muir Russell, who has been picked to head the investigation into East Anglia University, after an earlier trial balloon to have the inquiry headed by warmist advocate Lord Rees was shot down, is impartial, when he is a member of The Royal Society of Edinburgh, a vehemently pro-man made global warming organization.
“As a measure of how out of touch UEA is, they apparently have little idea that the title “former civil servant” does not inspire much confidence from skeptics, since it has been “civil servants” who have been blocking access to the data and procedures all along,” writes Anthony Watts.
Russell has pitched himself as someone with “no links to either the university or the climate science community,” yet he is firmly a member of the academic establishment, being the former Principal and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Glasgow.
Russell is the quintessential establishment lackey, having been appointed a Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath in the Queen’s Birthday Honours in 2001.
There’s little doubt that Russell is an establishment insider who has been tasked with whitewashing the whole affair. He is a member of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, an offshoot of the same organization that Lord Rees is a part of. The Royal Society of Edinburgh “provides annual grants totaling over half a million pounds for research” in Scottish universities, a sizeable portion of which goes to research attempting to validify claims about man-made global warming.
The RSE has thrown its weight behind the global warming movement, lending its absolute support for legislation aimed at reducing carbon emissions by 80%, a process that will devastate the global economy and living standards.
This organization has been even more vehement than national governments in its advocacy of the man-made cause of global warming, calling for such drastic CO2 cuts to be made in the short term, not even by the usual target date of 2050.
A February 2009 response to the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill outlines the organization’s staunch advocacy for the hypothesis of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming.
Earlier this year, The Royal Society of Edinburgh elected Professor Peter Smith to become one of its members. Smith just happens to be the Convening Lead Author of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report. He has also been a lead author for numerous other IPCC reports over the past thirteen years.
How can a proud member of an organization that is aggressively pushing measures to cut CO2 in the name of halting alleged man-made global warming, while also having a direct relationship with the UN IPCC, bill himself as being totally impartial and unconnected to climate science?
The climategate scandal has grown wings and taken flight. This is a scandal within a scandal, the notion that the very crooks caught manipulating data can appoint their own allies to “investigate” their wrongdoing and think nothing of it, while claiming that such individuals are impartial and independent, is beyond belief.
The only real investigation of climategate has to occur at the congressional or parliamentary level, preferably both, and it has to be completely open and transparent – not sneakily wrapped up behind closed doors by organizations like the IPCC and members of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, both of whom have a massive stake in protecting and upholding the entire climate change fraud.
For the last several years, when people have instructed me that human activity was causing a dangerous increase in global temperatures, my response has been, "Then tell me, what should the temperature be?" Should it be the temperatures that the planet experienced a thousand years ago, during which Greenland was settled as a farming community and during which wine grapes were grown in Scotland? Should it be the temperatures of three hundred years ago, when the Little Ice Age ended the inhabitation of Greenland and the Thames iced over? Should it be the temperatures of 829 A.D., when the Nile River froze? No response!
We are told, based on computer models, that human beings burning fossil fuels -- and exhaling -- is increasing the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. This, in turn, is trapping heat, which is responsible for the modest temperature increase between 1976 and 1998. The conclusion is that we must alter our entire lifestyles to avoid a planetary catastrophe.
For computer models to be accurate, inputs must include all of the factors that can impact climate. Knowing this, as well as believing it likely that the majority of factors that do impact climate are yet unknown, how can we trust the models?
To begin with, CO2 is not driving temperature as claimed. We know from core samples taken from the Vostok glacier in Antarctica that while CO2 and temperatures do increase and decrease in consonance, the temperature changes precede the CO2 changes by about a thousand years.
We currently have about 388 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere by volume. That is at the lower end of the historical comfort scale. The most fertile time that our planet has ever seen was during the Cambrian Period, about 542 million years ago. In a very short period of time, all of multicellular life that has ever existed was deposited into the fossil record. That occurred because the planet was warm. The CO2 level in the atmosphere was twenty times higher then than it is today. The entire planet was green with growth, and oxygen levels were unusually high.
Likewise, during the period of dinosaur dominance, CO2 levels were five times higher than today, enabling the planet to grow enough greenery to keep those giant animals alive.
Even today, the most diverse part of our planet in both plant and animal life is around the equator -- the warmest area of the globe.
We are told that the calving of ice shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula is proof that the world's largest ice pack, which comprises about 90% of the globe's ice, is melting. The Antarctic Peninsula constitutes 2% of the continent. The other 98% of the continent has been growing by about 27 gigatons of ice per year. This comes not from computer models, but from thirty years' worth of satellite measurements. Those same empirical observations show that the concentration of sea ice surrounding Antarctica is at a record high.
What's more, every computer model shows that greenhouse warming is associated with a "hot spot" located four to six miles above the equator. We have been monitoring that very spot for fifty years. It doesn't exist. Thus, whatever warming we see is unlikely to be due to the greenhouse effect as the models explain it.
We are told that the melting of arctic ice is endangering the future of polar bears. There were five thousand polar bears fifty years ago. There are twenty-five thousand today. This does not seem like extinction to me. Additionally, Captain Roald Amundsen of Norway explored that entire region in 1905, sailing through the North-West Passage in a sailboat! Today, there is usually ice blocking his route.
In his movie An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore says that sea levels will rise by twenty feet in the next century, putting much of the world's oceanfront land and islands at risk. Real science tells us that the last glaciation ended about 11,000 years ago. Oceans have risen since then by about four feet per century. In the 20th century, sea levels rose by about eight inches. Indeed, Dr. Nils-Axel Moerner from the University of Stockholm, who has written 520 peer-reviewed articles on sea levels and is considered a world authority, recently declared that sea levels have been unchanged for the last three years.
Years ago, Dr. Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT, theorized that higher temperatures over the equator caused the cirrus clouds to disappear and venting heat up over the atmosphere. That theory is now a proven fact, quantified by NASA. It begins when the surface temperature of the ocean exceeds 28 degrees centigrade. This fact is not considered on the computer models.
This is what this whole discussion comes down to. In science, only two conditions exist. One is theory, and the other is fact. The entire notion of human-caused global warming is a theory based on computer models. None of it has been proven through rigorous empirical observation to be a fact.
On December 7, 2009, President Obama will send a delegation to Copenhagen, Denmark, for the U.N. Climate Conference. So what exactly is the goal of this conference? A few months ago, Al Gore explained the ultimate goal: global governance. If the climate alarmists get their way, the U.S. economy would be subject to the whims of a U.N.-led climate government, unaccountable to American taxpayers but most certainly using American taxpayer funds to operate. Since so many countries are happy to blame the U.S. for the vast majority of what they amusingly claim is a catastrophic slide into global devastation, I am sure that a new U.N. Climate Government will be all too eager to call on the American taxpayer to foot the bill. In fact, the two-hundred-page draft document says just that. We will be billed by an unelected bureaucracy for our "climate debt." And we will yield our sovereignty to international law.
I noted earlier that this has been a discussion. Unfortunately, it has not been a debate. The alarmists refuse to debate; they say that the science is settled. Nonsense! There is no such thing as settled scientific theory -- only settled scientists. If Al Gore believes his science is settled, he should agree to debate and prove the skeptics wrong. Yet he has been running from debate for years.
To those who ask who would be hurt if we were wrong about CO2 and reduced the amount in the atmosphere, I say only the 1.6 billion most vulnerable people in the world. They are desperate for more CO2 so they can grow food. Their lives are brutal and short. They desperately need what we have enjoyed over the past hundred years.
Over the last two million years, this planet has experienced about twenty glaciations. They last about a hundred thousand years, and they are interrupted by warming periods of about ten thousand years. It has been about eleven thousand years since the last glaciation ended. During the last century, we saw one of the longest periods of high solar activity since the last glaciation. Temperatures rose. We have seen less sun activity in the last eleven years than we have seen for a very long time. The temperature has also been either steady or declining for eleven years. (By the way, not one of the computer models, which so confidently predict what will happen in one hundred years, predicted that cooling.) Let us pray that all this is not a signal of the next glaciation -- one that actually kills people.
There is no need for any climate treaty at Copenhagen. It is time to disband the U.N.'s self-serving and serially dishonest climate panel. Officially sponsored environmental extremism is a danger to our national security.
Representative John Linder (R-GA) sits on the House Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over the Waxman-Markey bill, jurisdiction over the Boxer-Kerry bill should it pass in the Senate, and authority over all carbon taxes generally.
Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/climate_challenges.html.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 11:11 pm Post subject:
Mr-Bridger wrote:
Dont leave Chek, you keep me entertained with your unfaltering belief in your new-age religion. What is posted on this thread by others is in no way `Spam` just because it doesnt fit with your dogma. All the posts that i have seen have been on subject.
See, yet again you plainly show you can't distinguish between understanding and belief.
But that's only your perception, Mr-B. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 11:22 pm Post subject:
Mr-Bridger wrote:
What is posted on this thread by others is in no way `Spam` just because it doesnt fit with your dogma. All the posts that i have seen have been on subject.
Ok, so by your logic all 333,180,427 notional results for scam in google, should be posted here, at a rate of 10 per day, with no response forthcoming when their idiocy is pointed out
Is the point of a forum, as you see it, is it?
Because as far as I can tell, we're just No. 47 on banjoboy's spamming list from Morono Central. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 11:57 pm Post subject:
item8 wrote:
Quote:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/commentaries/c limate_challenges.pdfIndeed, Dr. Nils-Axel Moerner from the University of Stockholm, who has written 520 peer-reviewed articles on sea levels and is considered a world authority, recently declared that sea levels have been unchanged for the last three years.
Amongst such a tidal wave of lies and distortions it's difficult to know where to start.
So here's some easy ones.
Show the source for that large count of the wonderful Dr. Morner's number of peer-reviewed papers.
It shouldn't be that hard using GoogleScholar, what with him having so many and all.
And secondly, a source for sea level rise (or non-rise) as the case may be in the last three years.
Because ... well because, I have information to the contrary and I don't believe you.
And blog links don't count, btw.
Thanks. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Top 10 Tory bloggers disagree with David Cameron on climate change
Key Conservative thinkers doubt climate change is man-made, according to a survey of the most influential Tories online
guardian.co.uk, Monday 16 November 2009 15.21 GMT
All of the top 10 Tory bloggers either doubt or dismiss the scientific consensus that climate change is caused by human activity, according to a survey of the views of top Conservative thinkers on the web. The views run counter to David Cameron's focus on environment issues and will deal a blow to his hopes of changing the Tory party's anti-green image.
All 10 bloggers, including MPs, MEPS and key Tory thinkers, reject or question the view that climate change is caused by humans, and many disagree with their leader that addressing it should be an urgent policy priority if they win power.
One blogger, Douglas Carswell MP – a rising back-bench star co-founder of Direct Democracy, a top Tory thinktank, and an influential voice in the party – claimed on his blog in October that the "lunatic 'consensus' on man-made climate change is starting to break down". Climate change scientists say that the evidence for man-made climate change is stronger than ever.
Another MP, John Redwood, has praised the Channel 4 documentary the Great Global Warming Swindle, which was pilloried by scientists for its inaccuracies. Ofcom ruled that Channel 4 had breached broadcasting codes on impartiality and was "unjust and unfair" in the way that it represented individuals in the programme.
Iain Dale, who was named in Total Politics magazine as the number one Tory blogger, has written that climate change, "has indeed become a religion to those people who like to jump on the bandwagon of such causes". Total Politics is part-funded by the billionaire Tory peer and deputy chairman Lord Michael Ashcroft. It is distributed free to Britain's 23,000 elected politicians.
The survey was conducted by Sunder Katwala, general secretary of the Fabian Society, on his Next Left blog after a similar post from the Lib Dem blogger Mark Reckons. "The Tory blogs range from different varieties of agnosticism to the absolute certainty that climate change is a fraud," posted Katwala.
He said his findings suggested that the so-called "Tory netroots" of influential bloggers could exert pressure on party policy in the event of a Tory win at the next election.
"It puts barriers on a strong policy response," Katwala said. "It reflects a continued strong belief in a free-market response to climate change – to price in a response. But you can't do that if you're a believer in small government because that means a lot of multilateral governance and regulation of the economy if you're to have working markets."
The Conservative party said climate change action remained a priority. "The Conservative party are 100% committed to tackling climate change through action both nationally and internationally," said a party spokesman.
The leadership has worked hard in the past five years to present itself as fully committed to environmental issues. The entire front shadow bench signed up to the 10:10 campaign in September, pledging to cut their personal carbon footprints by 10% within a year. In October, the shadow energy and climate change secretary, Greg Clark, proposed a "green deal", offering homeowners £6,500 to carry out eco-makeovers of their homes.
But the Friends of the Earth campaigns director, Mike Childs, said that to tackle climate change through regulation would be necessary. "David Cameron can talk about small government, but if he wants to tackle climate change he has to recognise there is a significant role for government to require energy companies to insulate peoples' homes, to require local authorities to take action on climate change, to clean up British coal-fired plants, to work with Europe to enable the fast development and uptake of electric vehicles. Those kind of actions need a government that is taking action and not just encouraging others to take action," he said.
The government's chief scientist has been forced to justify controversial claims in the government's latest climate change advertisement, Channel 4 News has learnt.
The "storybook" TV campaign features a father reading his daughter a frightening bedtime story about global warming. This programme understands that Clearcast, the body responsible for vetting TV adverts, has questioned the scientific evidence used in the campaign.
Clearcast's role is to check that adverts touching on issues of public controversy are impartial - in line with broadcasting rules. After learning that questions had been raised, the government's top scientific advisers penned a furious retort to Clearcast.
The letter, seen by Channel 4 News, states: "We are concerned that the basic scientific inferences referred to in the latest...campaign are being brought into question by Clearcast.
"We are both surprised and disturbed that the premise of the television campaign is being questioned, given the incontrovertible nature of the science that underpins the campaign material."
Read the letter from the government to Clearcast in full here.
The government says it hasn't broken the rules because the advert is based on fact. It was eventually cleared for broadcast, but is now being investigating by the advertising watchdog after triggering 785 complaints from members of the public.
The fresh dispute comes after a week of allegations that scientists are manipulating official data. Leaked emails have led to charges the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has distorted the evidence on global warming.
The chief scientist John Beddington and the energy department's main scientific adviser Robert Watson wrote the letter to Clearcast. It's emerged that Professor Watson is director of strategic development at the UEA's Climatic Research Unit.
A 'mendacious' advert
Lord Lawson, the Conservative former chancellor who has just launched a think tank devoted to challenging conventional wisdom about climate change, told Channel 4 News the advert was "mendacious".
He said: "There are two things wrong with this ad. First, I am sure that if a commercial organisation had tried an ad which is as imaginative, as inventive as this one and as mendacious, it would not be permitted. The second thing is the focus of the ad is to scare young children and I think that's positively immoral."
But the Energy Secretary Ed Miliband told the programme: "The problem is that the sceptics who want to cast doubt on this are the modern equivalent of the Flat Earth Society because the science is very clear about this. Climate change is real. It's happening. It's man-made.
"Frankly it's irresponsible to suggest that it isn't happening and it isn't man-made and it's trying to suggest that there is an easy way out of climate change. Well I'm afraid there isn't an easy way out. We want to make it as financially possible as possible for people to make the transition but the truth is these are hard decisions that we have to make in order to make this transition. It's necessary and the science is very clear."
Climate change survey
Private research commissioned by the energy department - and seen by Channel 4 News - shows the scale of the challenge facing the government as it attempts to persuade people to combat the threat from global warming. Those surveyed didn't see climate change "having a serious impact in the UK". And they wanted the government to do more about the problem before they individually would do their bit.
Worryingly for the government, the research also found "a lack of understanding...of what climate change actually is, how it is caused, what the impact will be, what that might mean to human life and when the consequences might happen".
Not only do ministers have to convince a sceptical public about the effects of global warming, but they also have to persuade people to pay for measures to fight it.
The government estimates that by 2020 the average household energy bill will increase by £92 a year as energy companies pass on to consumers the cost of tackling climate change.
On top of that, many householders will have to dig into their own pockets for energy saving devices around the home.
The government is to encourage householders to pay for loft lagging, cavity wall insulation and other green initiatives by applying for long-term loans from supermarkets, banks, local authorities and energy companies.
Last edited by item8 on Sun May 30, 2010 10:24 am; edited 1 time in total
Snow in Houston Texas Earliest Snowfall in City’s History; Closes Schools
Posted by Christy Lovejoy on Dec 4th, 2009
Houston this morning broke a record with the earliest snowfall ever recorded in the city’s history.
Weather forecasters are still hedging their bets on the amount, but most say that the most likely scenario is 1 to 2 inches of widespread snowfall through the day. Some areas are predicted to have 6 inches of snowfall too. Citizens in Houston already have sent sand trucks and chemical trucks ready for the icy roads to make way for the 12-hour freeze period has been predicted after sundown today.
Some have added theories that the earliest snowfall could’ve been an effect of global warming or climate change. Eric Berger of the Houston Chronicle however throws the global warming theory in to the trash can as he said that the snowfall in Houston doesn’t have any connection with the global phenomenon. Houston weather will be intensely monitored during the next hours by channel 11 houston, channel 26 houston, channel 13, KXAN weather, KVUE weather and Fox News Austin. Txdot cameras will also monitor road conditions around houston.
As of the moment, news about the snow has prompted Houston official to suspend classes in schools around Houston.
"Some have added theories that the earliest snowfall could’ve been an effect of global warming or climate change."
Global warming is going to freeze you to death!! You know it makes sense. Fortunately it will only happen in everybody's locality.
The leaked emails in “Climategate” show that science is a very political affair
By Javier Cuadros
If temperatures were not already warm enough, the email leak from the University of East Anglia (UK) will make sure that the United Nations climate change summit in Copenhagen next week will be held in great weather.
In the unlikely event that you have not heard about "Climategate", here is what happened. Hackers broke into servers at the University's Climate Research Unit (CRU), a key centre for the study of climate change and downloaded 13 years of private emails and documents. They posted them online on a blog called The Air Vent.
The hackers explained: "We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it."
Climate change supporters dismissed the revelations which emerged as bloggers trawled through 13 years of emails as a storm in a teacup. But sceptics regard them as a "smoking gun", evidence that some climatologists colluded in manipulating data to support their hypothesis that climate change is real and is being largely caused by the actions of mankind.
Some of the emails are, at the very least, embarrassing. In one of them, from Professor Phil Jones, the director of the CRU, to an American colleague, the death of a sceptic is described as "cheering news". In another he suggests that a "trick" was used to "hide the decline" in temperature. They even include fantasies of violence. An American wrote to Professor Jones: "Next time I see Pat Michaels [(a climate sceptic)] at a scientific meeting, I'll be tempted to beat the nonsense out of him. Very tempted."
The first point, on which everyone agrees, is that the action was illegal. Let the law take its course. However, this is irrelevant to the question debated. The debate is centred, or should be, on whether the science of Global Warming, alias Climate Change, has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that (1) there is a global warming of the planet and (2) it is caused by human activity.
My opinion is no, it hasn't, as I have argued before in MercatorNet. It does not matter how many times the rhetoric about an overwhelming consensus is repeated. The consensus has been politically, not scientifically, generated. The statement of this consensus has the same value as, for example, that other famous statement that Iraq was piling up arms of mass destruction. It is part of a political campaign, not of an educational campaign.
The word campaign brings to mind the second point. The email hacking is obviously part of a campaign and the leak was timed to damage the meeting in Copenhagen. But again, the global warming case is also a campaign. The difference between the two is that one is sustained by the governments of some of the most powerful states in the world, the media and environmental groups, and has access to taxpayers' money, while the other is sustained by a group of diehards using their own money.
The third and central point is that there is a hint of foul play that may have been exposed. The foul play, if it did happen, may have a tremendous effect in the lives of millions of peoples around the world and for generations to come. Isn't it common sense to call for an investigation? Isn't it even ethically demanded? The official reaction to such an enquiry is pitifully suspicious. It also lacks logic.
Somebody is accusing a group of people of tinkering with scientific data in order to produce a certain desired result, and of not wanting to make these data available because this could reveal the tinkering. In response, this group of people answers that there is nothing to discuss on the whole issue because their data have proven the truth of their results. This is basically the content of the official response to the alleged leak. Can the reader spot the gap in the logic?
Unwillingness to share data and methods of analysis by certain scientists supporting the man-made global warming interpretation has been mentioned before. Nigel Lawson provides examples with names, dates and the specific issues in his book An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming.
Finally, some of the official answers to the email leak argue that the implicated scientists have published their studies in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and this makes it virtually impossible to assert that they tinkered with their data.
I cannot help but smile at such an argument. Scientists, both authors and reviewers, as well as the editors of scientific journals, are human. They have their share in our common lot of error, taste for success, fear of peer pressure and interest in financial resources. A very recent case is an example of how scientific peer-review can be fooled. Jan Hendrik Sch?n, a physicist working at the Bell Labs in the USA, published a long string of articles during the 1990s and 2000s in Science (one of the two most prestigious scientific journals in the world) with results that he fabricated. He did it single-handed and it took years to expose him.
Science is difficult. It relies on a multitude of data, assumptions, simplifications and interpretations that try to make sense of the facts. Any cutting-edge science worthy of being considered for publication deals with opinion as much as with fact, precisely because it is trying to break new ground. Climate science is the epitome of this complexity, as it deals with the planet globally and the innumerable processes going on in the atmosphere, oceans and lithosphere in a mutual feed-back loop. Yes, there is a very substantial possibility that a great number of papers on the matter have substantial limitations that will be identified in the future. Some of them may even have intentional errors.
The genuineness of the leaked emails should be investigated. Let us see whether these angels of climate change are completely pure and whether some demons of denying have some goodness in them-as they may be actually interested in the truth of the case.
Javier Cuadros is a scientist and works in London, UK. This article was originally published on MercatorNet.com under a Creative Commons Licence. If you enjoyed this article, visit MercatorNet.com for more.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
