Thanks to Jorn in Germany for the graphic (with my additions)
The collateral damage from the emails is large
ClimateGate doesn’t just bring down the scientists who wrote the emails, it brings down all the institutions and organizations that were supposed to have exacting standards and ought to have exposed the crimes years ago. The men whose work was so bogus, were lauded by the IPCC, published in Nature and Science, and defended by the National Academy of Science.
This evidence of collusion, falsification, hiding data, and consistent deceit blows away the infrastructures of the practice of science. It doesn’t hurt the scientific method, but it destroys the premise that the IPCC expert review means anything, that peer review is capable of even picking up outright fraud, and that the National Academy of Science is functional.
…the journals, the famous peer review, the committees with international reviewers: they have also been exposed as corrupted.
In other words, all the human processes of science, the journals, the famous peer review, the committees with international reviewers: they have also been exposed as corrupted to some degree.
This is much more than just the downfall of three or four men.
Of the 26 names on the Copenhagen Diagnosis, 12 are connected to the email scandal. It implicates almost half the lead team. The IPCC only had 60 reviewers of the one chapter that matters (Chapter Nine), and some of them reviewed their own work, many had vested interests, and now a significant number have been caught by the scandal.
The legal claws means it won’t just “go away”
Phil Jones has stepped down pending an investigation.
Michael Mann is now under investigation by Pennsylvania State University.
Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) had their attorneys file three Notices of Intent to File Suit against NASA. Chris Horner, representing CEI, said the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies failed to comply with the Freedom of Information Act for the past three years.
We’ve discussed some more criminal charges in detail.
And just to complete the picture of widespread carbon-corruption, the top two auditors of carbon-permits have been suspended in the last 12 months.
UPDATE: Europol story that Carbon Credit Fraud costs $5 billion
The European Union (EU) Emission Trading System (ETS) has been the victim of fraudulent traders in the past 18 months. This resulted in losses of approximately 5 billion euros for several national tax revenues. It is estimated that in some countries, up to 90% of the whole market volume was caused by fraudulent activities. (Thanks to Springer ).
Scientists are speaking out
Prominent long time climate scientists and UN scientists are speaking out. Dr Petr Chylek who has published over 100 papers says, “We cannot blame it on a few irresponsible individuals. The entire esteemed climate research community has to take responsibility.”
Top ranking physicists are speaking out against their association. (And CBS is even covering it.)
There is inflammable material in the path
The burning fuse that has been lit by ClimateGate may eventually spread to take down editors and publishers of popular magazines and mainstream media. As the public learn the news from friends, blogs, and community newspapers, some publications will be left behind. The credibility of some mastheads may never recover.
Being the victim of a well intentioned exaggeration is vastly different from falling to a predetermined malicious fraud.
The thing that makes the ClimateGate mix so powerful is that it taps into a universal human attribute. Being the victim of a well intentioned exaggeration is vastly different from falling to a predetermined malicious fraud. There is energy from the masses that would fuel a rebellion. Behind the scenes, well connected businessmen in California, surgeons in Sydney, lawyers in the UK, and top ranking physicists are emailing and linking up. Networks of graphic designers, movie makers, and animators are planning ways to fight back.
No one can keep the largest scam in history a secret. But the major movers and brains behind this must know that too. That’s why I’m still very afraid that they will get a deal done. Those with billions resting on the table know that this is their last chance to salvage game-changing profits.
People everywhere, you need to let your elected representatives know, before it’s too late, that any deal done in Copenhagen is based on fraud; that voters will come to know it; that the masses will revolt.
I was speaking to Australian Senators and their staff last night. The thousands of messages they received last week from furious voters made a big impact. Their staffers were overwhelmed.
If you think you are safe because you have faith that your congress or senate will protect you, think again. If most of the big nations “agree”, they will push with everything they have to force your country to join in, even if its citizens don’t want too. There is no way they’ll want you to have that unbridled competitive advantage. How could one or two nations stand against the trade forces of the rest?
UPDATE Friday 12:46 WST: Europol story that Carbon Credit Fraud costs $5 billion. See above. (Thanks to Springer who has a great quote about carbon credits on his site.)
CONTACTS FOR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES
AUSTRALIA : A list of Australian Members and Senators is here. (Thanks Allen)
CANADA: Members of the Canadian House of Commons. The names of the 105 members of the Canadian Senate . (Thanks Neil)
HUNGARY: Parlament List (Thanks Attila).
NETHERLANDS: parliament list. (Thanks Arnold).
NZ: Here is the PDF list for New Zealand. (Thanks Rereke.)
SWEDEN: Parliamentary emails. (Thanks Ahrvid).
UK: MPs and Lords. (Thanks Phillip)
USA: Here are links to the names of Representatives and Senators here in the U.S. The House of Representatives. The Senate site. The president. (Thanks Roy.)
Unfortunately they all require contact through their web sites. Both Senate and Congress have a way to look up the name of the Representative by zip code or Senators by state and then get to the individual web site. They no longer permit direct email. Their web sites also give a phone number.
Send me the links to pages of contacts for your elected members. I’ll post them. Every country that stays out of the deal is a win for us. This deal needs to be global. They know it.
ClimateGate News. (Lord Monckton’s new blog on SPPI)
Brava, and well said. I just left a note at WUWT bemoaning our side’s extremely poor performance in the on-air debates with Oppenheimer adn Schmidtt. Not content to complain that others have not done a good job, I have been on the lecture circuit here in the States and have a chance to plead our case on regional TV soon. Will keep you all posted if it is going to happen.
Tom
20
Here is a link for the netherlands.
http://www.sdnl.nl/mail-kamerleden-2007.htm
Youre doing a good thing. I allready send an email to all these people to ask them to stand still and think.
20
For those researchers in the United States and probably abroad, I would bet most if not all have received taxpayer dollars to undertake their research. These researchers need to be charged with criminal tax fraud and tried in a Federal Tax court. If they received any state funds, they should be prosecuted at the state level also. What these researchers have done goes way beyond what Bernie Madoff did to his customers in his $50 billion ponzi scheme.
The scientific community as a whole better wake up and condemn these researchers for what they have done, because the non-scientific community will lose faith and trust in not only the climatic science research community but all scientific research. People tend to use a very broad brush when they paint a segment of society with condemnation. Just because a scientist does not work in climatology doesn’t mean he or she will escape the bristles of the paint brush.
10
Thx JoNova! The scientific community has to have their come to Jesus moment and so far have failed. Wake up, the World knows of this injustice and will exact a fearful revenge if not corrected!
10
What is the next fabricated crisis? Water?
This one has not peaked. There is a surge left by the warm mongers. A blitz of “papers” and publicity. It is crumbling and many pseudo scientists are hyper ventilating.
10
UK MPs and Lords are at http://www.parliament.uk/mpslordsandoffices/mps_and_lords/alms.cfm
10
The cause of Climate research fraud? Follow the money. Funds for climate investigation come from governments, which intend to control the wealth of their citizens and subjects. That is the purpose of research grants into “climate change” (which used to be called Global Warming) in the first place. So only “politically correct” research results are allowed to be disseminated. All other results are suppressed–or destroyed. Questions about such such results are not allowed. And the questioner will be denounced and banned from all further government research–for life. If researchers want to keep their jobs, they better get the “correct” results. Note that this is the result of government-funded research and is identical to censorship. Scientists working with governent quickly become handmaidens and mouthpieces for that government.
10
Link to a very interesting talk by Lord Monckton…
http://vimeo.com/8023097
He’s now calling outright those involved in Climategate, “crooks”. And he is very specific as to why they are. Lots of good stuff.
10
Still waiting for this to hit mainstream media in australia, expecially TV. Looks like it’s one of those stories that they are hoping will fade away. If the media here ignore it for long enough, it probably will 🙁
10
The names of the 308 Members of the Canadian House of Commons are at –
http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsCompleteList.aspx?TimePeriod=Current&Language=E
The names of the 105 members of the Canadian Senate are at –
http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/senmemb/senate/isenator.asp
Your posts, from the Antipodes, are _very_ welcome, here in Lethbridge, Alberta, where I can see a long sweep of the Eastern Slopes of the Rocky Mountains (from our 10th-floor Atrium windows) wearing a nice, fresh, coat of winter snows…. Down here, at only 901 metres elevation, we have a mere 2 feet of snow, from last weekend’s snow showers…
And, on the “Discovery Channel” (ShawCable Channel 35), the Host is still beating the AGW/CC drums – he _is_ beginning to sound a mite desperate, tho… Grin.
Regards,
Neil Frandsen
10
Great work Joanne. These Institutions also need to know that if they want to whitewash the issue then they will seriously damage their reputations and scientific integrity.
10
Re: Neil Frandsen’s posting of the names of Canada’s MPs and senators,
Unfortunately, Canada’s main parties are all true believers, except for some Conservatives. The previous Liberal leader even had a dog named Kyoto! The current PM, Stephen Harper, is a man of few principles, and has already stated that he is ready to sign up to a binding agreement in Copenhagen. The Senate is a lost cause, being appointed rather than elected, a retirement home for loyal party hacks and totally unaccountable to the public.
Also, several of the provinces are also sending delegates to Copenhagen, and the two biggest ones (Ontario and Quebec) are firmly on the side of the AGW fundamentalists.
10
Here are links to the names of Representatives and Senators here in the U.S.
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.shtml#W
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Unfortunately they all require contact through their web sites. The House and Senate sites below both have a way to look up the name of the Representative by zip code or Senators by state and then get to the individual web site. They no longer permit direct email. Their web sites also give a phone number.
The House of Representatives site is: http://www.house.gov
The Senate site is: http://www.senate.gov
The president can be reached in similar fashion at: http://www.whitehouse.gov
10
Keep hitting them anyway. Enough pressure could change some minds about their stance.
10
We need to keep the pressure on all the country leaders no matter if it looks like a lost cause.
Here in Australia public presure convinced our opposition senate to stand against the labour party and overturned legislation on a massive carbon tax that would have put Australians into a financial black hole and perhaps could have set the tone for these scam meetings in Copenhagen. Keep fighting and emailing no matter what.
10
Hadley NOAA, Cru and Nasa GISS data can’t be trusted. That means an honest scientist using corrupt data can be accused of being dishonest.
10
In summary, large institutions cannot be trusted with custodianship of truth. This includes the state, and the publication industry.
A little creative destruction is in order.
10
I am disgusted at being called a “sceptic” or a “denier” or a “flat earther” by the politicians that I elect. Even worse, the scientists that I support through my taxes have been shown to be childish in the extreme, and probably criminal too. This whole issue is then compounded by the abject failure of the media to produce a balanced argument. I am not a scientist, I am a pilot by training, but I studied meteorology for 2 years as a specialist subject. That still gives me no qualification to comment on the scientific findings, so I still await clear indisputable facts, backed by solid evidence. To base a complete change in the way we live and do business based on a dozen or so unidentifiable trees I find laughable in the extreme. As an Englishman, I find the actions of the CRU to be a national embarrassment, as are those of Hadley and the Met Office. As has been commented earlier, they can’t even get tomorrow’s weather right.
Bravo to you Ms Nova, I enjoy your site and learn something new every day. I have 3 children at University, and Christmas is coming, but have scraped together a few coppers for the chocolate fund.
10
[…] The Climategate Virus The Climategate Virus […]
10
CliveW,
Agree, 100% from Down here in Australia. I too get very worried when the Prime minister of Australia bases his scientific view on a film and then get’s on the Lamestream media and calls everyone who doesn’t agree with AGW a “denier”, etc. It smacks of dangerous ignorance.
I wouldn’t be too concerned about the UK suffering from national embarrassment. Humble pie should be the flavor of the year next year for a lot of countries. 😉
10
Even BBC picking up on IPCC bias.
The 2007 IPCC report claims the Himalayan glaciers will be likely to disappear by 2035.
This IPCC report estimate was based on an unverified news report in NewScientist, who got the info from Greenpeace.
Although BBC spins this as a “mistake”, Pachuri is unable to admit an error,
calls scientific peer reviewed papers cited by the Indian government stating Himalayan Glaciers will still be there in three hundred and fifty years time “Voodoo Science” and said IPCC report is verified by governments.
The climate scientist who wrote the prediction also denied that the “facts” in the IPCC report were wrong, but admitted they were based on the NewScientist report.
Who is credible now?
10
Report in Kiwi media the Australian Delegation to Copenhagen is 114 strong. How many does 747 need to carry his bags?
10
Hello,
Here is the list for New Zealand:
http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/5858C8A5-ACDF-4B35-8D7A-3ABB7B19ACDB/117421/listofmembers1711093.pdf
Sorry about the PDF – the list is not available in HTML
10
Keep up the good work Joanne! Whip the masses into a frenzy! Storm the gates! Lynch the scientists, the media, the politicians, the companies, the banks, the Commies, the Greenies – they’re all in on it.
Reason and logic, indeed!
10
Rumble, Joanne said nothing about lynching scientists. That’s just your bloated imagination running wild. Reason and logic, would not be lost on you perhaps.
All this blog is about is holding AGW theory to the scientific method, which it fails. Before these emails showing scientific fraud arrived, it was already known that the science was being cooked and twisted to support a fallacy. Anyone willing to check the raw data (that’s if you can get your hands on it) could see that. What could also be seen was that the case for Co2 as a primary forcing agent for global warming was extremely non-existent.
You know all too well what has occurred here but still you defend the indefensible. Why? Are you a shill for a carbon trading house? Has this turn of events upset your ten year plan?
Noone is storming the gates – that is the sort of mindless activism coming from the left wing radicals).
10
Joanne,
What we need is an internet film like Zeitgeist. One segment could be on the 35 Inconvenient Truths(errors) in Big Al’s movie. One on climategate,failure of peer review, the ‘2500’ scientists reviewing the IPCC. One on the real science (Like the handbooks).
But also to focus on what is really happening – warming (yes climate change) for hundreds of years, oceans stripped bare by drift netting/longlines/’bycatch’, pollution (real pollution), topsoil loss ……. the list of real environmental horror stories is endless – I may not believe in CO2 pollution but I am very concerned about the planet. Then point out that a trillion dollars can be found to bail out bankers but solving real problems never happens.
Now there is a movie that could change the planet!
10
I’m getting a little tired of the finger pointing at skeptics. This is bigger than you think. The more I look into the who’s who of AGE the worse it looks.
Here’s a quote from Maurice Strong who was instrumental in putting Kyoto together and who appears to have the ear of the UN Secretary General.
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Scare you Rumble? It scares me. Google this guy and then tell me whether I’m blowing smoke or not. He’s not the only one but he appears to be the most powerful.
There was never any global warming. It was trumped up to fit the agenda of guys like Strong. What better way to engineer the collapse the “industrialized civilizations” (that’s us) than by gaining iron fisted control over their energy supply?
What CRU thought they were doing I don’t know, but it was just a game for them one way or another. The real villain here as I’ve suspected for some time is probably the United Nations.
10
Clumsy typing. AGE should be AGW.
10
That and a lot more money has been wasted that could solve or get us a lot closer to solving real problems. Now how do we get the #@$% politicians to pay attention. Or more realistically, how do we get the voters to pay attention. After all, we choose the ones who lead us.
10
In respect to the Conservatives in Canada they are really between a rock and a hard place. The MSM led by CBC/Pravda would pillory any Conservative member that took a strong stand. Furthermore, because 80% of Canadian trade is with the U.S., we really can’t get offside with a different approach.
Bottom line.. if the US does nothing (i.e. Cap and Trade doesn’t go through the Senate and the EPA ruling gets held up in the courts), Canada will do nothing.
What is needed is not a bombardment of the Conservative members, but rather a concerted attack on the media and the opposition. We need to have public opinion strongly on our side and the people like Suzuki on the run.
10
@Rumble
Three words : ReadTheEmails (link to emails)
If you actually read the emails, and started connecting the dots, you would see how this whole disaster of politically biased, agenda driven, bad science has happened. There are meetings where IPCC officials tell the scientists that their scientific results are wrong because they are not on message with the political agenda and directly tell them to modify the graphs ( i.e. falsify them ) to provide a simple clear convincing message for the media supporting the AGW hypothesis.
It seems to me that the biggest problem in reaching an informed consensus on this debate seems to be that the Warmists are facing such cognitive dissonance that they cannot bring themselves to read the emails, but are relying of Al Gore‘s pronouncements that the newest email is 10 years old (direct untruth) and that the quotes in the emails were quoted “out of context” ( there are 1000+ emails which provide all the context, if the warmists could only bring themselves to read them.)
10
JS – you almost seem to be accusing the warmists of being in denial.
10
Can we say, “Busted”!
Europol uncovers massive emissions trading fraud.
And on my site here.
10
Springer,
yep, completely BUSTED, totally. And they want to global with this?
10
Okay, I’m a complete cow and an utter fool. I haven’t read or understood anything. I’ve been brainwashed and I’m incapable of thinking for myself.
That said, it is plainly apparent and deeply disturbing to even my feeble mind that Joanne is playing a particularly reckless and dangerous game by trying to stir up an angry mob on this. The louder she shouts, the less I hear.
How about a dose of realism? Ian Plimer’s star appearance at Copenhagen, presided over by Viscount Monckton, attracted 45 people.
And the anti-ETS rally in Melbourne, promoted here last week, what was the attendance again?
10
Goddamit where’s my burning torch and pitchfork. “THERES A WITCH!!!!”
10
MadJak…
The utterly shocking line in that report is…
“It is estimated that in some countries, up to 90% of the whole market volume was caused by fraudulent activities.”
Had to read that a couple times to grasp it! 90%!!! WOW!!!
10
Springer,
5 Billion Euros is is probably enough to buy another Bank over there. Actually probably four or five.
I would gamble on the fact that with a new economic system (which this is), and the ability of vested interests to complicate it, that this was probably the first fraud of many and much more will be bound to be going on.
10
I’m very pleased that there is at last some public balance to the debate, however some of the comments here and on other sites are just as confrontational as the AGW debate. I’m as fed up as being sold the sky is falling line as everyone else, but if people go off like a scalded cat at this (I too am guilty of this), it will only cement the CO2/AGW position further.
We need to remember to keep our heads, promote what we know, debase the fundamentals of the AGW debate, namely
CO2 not driving temp
CO2 not a pollutant
only 60 odd IPCC scientists not 4000
consensus not relevant to science, only independently reproducable results
confusing effect with cause (Kilimanjaro, urban heat islands etc)
modelling not matching reality
Climategate calls into question basic inputs to all modelling assumptions
warming statistics flawed due to statistical processing and smoothing (Darwin etc)
We should keep on looking at the data we have, keep pushing for the IPCC’s raw data and methods and keep pushing for a political review and a return to proper scientific process.
As much as its tempting, pointing fingers and calling people liars and cheats is probably counter productive (except when it involves Al Gore that is 😉 ) – you’ll notice those in the AGW camp who jump up and down and scream end of the world alarmism are not at all credible, even to those that actually agree with AGW. And Jo – I don’t know what Ian Plimmer was on about, its a bit toasty in Perth today!
10
Often humour gets a message across better than anything.
Any blogger with talent and resources? A “group Photo” of 2500 scientists, but with the faces of the cabal, ie Jones Mann Briffa Wigley et al repeated over and over again.
The title? mmmmmm Peer Review??
The caption? mmmm Consensus of 2500 scientists??
Any thoughts?
10
Great idea! Let’s get a group photo of all 45 people in the audience at Ian Plimer’s Copenhagen address (he managed to squeeze one in between book signings) and superimpose Jo’s face on every one of them!
Or, I know! We get a great big picture of Pachauri and make him look like a donkey and we can all pin the tail on him!
No, no, better still: we invent the AGW Twister game: we put faces on some of the squares – Maurice Strong, Pachauri, Mann and Jones et al, and you have to tie yourself in knots trying to follow the logic of their arguments! What a hoot!
10
Employing fudge factors as REM in Fortran code that is poorly written and biases the data, manipulating data to “hide the decline,” “homogenizing” the Australian weather station data, blacklisting colleagues with differing opinions, withholding raw data under request for release by FOIA (both at NASA and CRU), losing raw data such that the above actions are indefensible because conclusions cannot be confirmed by independent observers and making efforts to take over the peer review process is not sound science.
Given reliance on this data by parties on both sides of the Atlantic and the systematic biases of the investigators, the only thing supported by overwhelming evidence is corruption of the scientific method with the scientist as advocate as opposed to observer. This is driven by a vortex of global groupthink to which investigators, the media and political leaders must adhere if they hope to advance in status in the group. This groupthink continues to be evidenced by the reluctance of members of the group to confront with honesty their own conclusions in light of the questions that are raised.
No conclusions can be made until science acts in a manner independent of advocacy and investigators can review data with transparency on a level playing field without fear of character assassination for the conclusions that they reach. The science needs to be redone…now is not the time to use flawed and biased data to make policy conclusions. The trillions of dollars that might be wasted could be applied to other problems.
As a physician and clinical investigator, I would ask for a second opinion if presented with a diagnosis based on such flawed data.
10
While Mr Rumble Mourdre is doing his disbelieving best to belittle J’so and others’ efforts, perhaps he might explain what his side is trying to do. See WUWT “The Met Office: making a list – tries to prop up the image of the CRU”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/10/the-met-office-making-a-list-tries-to-prop-up-the-image-of-the-cru/
Tit for tat?
10
For those who believe “trick” and “hide the decline” were taken out of context and have no real relevance, and those who don’t believe in “collusion” by scientists to con the masses, take a look at Steve McIntyres article chronologically linking the IPCC to the “hide the decline” affair. here:
http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/#more-9483
10
Dear Bryn (43),
Yes, I am most certainly trying to discredit Jo’s efforts on this particular page because her tactics and inflammatory language in this particular case have the distinct odour of someone heading unthinkingly down a tactical track from which can come little or no good. Only the most naive, desperate or reckless leader risks stirring up mob mentality, because mobs do ugly unpredictable things. I would prefer to remain silent but silence can be taken as assent.
If you think I’m over-reacting then you have not followed the anti-abortion debate and the animals in research debate: on the fringes of all these issues are some truly dangerous and unbalanced people who need only a loud enough dog-whistle to be unleashed. Firebombings, murders, appalling and prolonged harassment, thefts, break-ins, equipment vandalised, reputations defamed, researchers falsely accused of pedophilia – you name it, it’s happened. I attended a public lecture at which a medical researcher bravely fronted her critics and tried to explain how her work with animals was aimed at curing a condition that afflicted thousands of children every year. When we left the lecture hall, some scum had used red paint to scrawl “MURDERER” on her car.
Already on this blog I have seen someone suggest direct action and holding protests at university laboratories.
Tel (17 above) whimsically says: “A little creative destruction is in order” and maybe someone takes him literally.
Jo whips up anger and resentment at fraud and deception, then adds There is energy from the masses that would fuel a rebellion. Maybe someone takes this as permission to do something stupid – Oh? you say, they wouldn’t do that; that’s not what she meant.
I say, oh, wouldn’t they?
10
MSM getting skeptical?
DarwinZero published in UK spectator Magazine under the “Smoking Iceberg” title!
10
Interesting that George Soros, the puppetmaster behind Realclimate.org, has popped up today, suggesting easy ways for capital to be transferred from developed to developing (or undeveloped) countries. Of course, he would skim a healthy slice, just like Gore, but maybe on a more sophisticated massive scale. After all, he is the man who broke the Bank of England.
Just out of interest — last week I contributed to the climate warming blog on Scientific American. It’s an entertaining site with hysterical contributors from both sides. I wish I’d kept a copy of my (I thought) very temperate entry, but from memory it went something like this:
“I’m not a climatologist but I an a scientist and I know how to read a graph…
But the average person really doesn’t need to wade through pages of arcane data, the story is all there in the emails, in their own words…
1. They discuss how to corrupt data.
2. They discuss how to hide the corruption.
3. They discuss how to silence contrary opinion in the journals.
4. They discuss how to intimidate the editors of scientific journals.
5. They discuss the destruction of data in the face of (or the likelihood of) FOI demands. This may, in fact, be illegal.
6. They urge the deletion of these emails to ensure secrecy (they thought).”
So, that was the guts of my post. Not inflammatory, just a list of melancholy facts. No?
I read it over with some morose satisfaction, then went to bed. Checked in the morning — it had been deleted!!
So, Scientific American, I’m afraid, seems to have joined the shady club of compromised journals. Just thought people should know that.
Mal.
10
Rumble Mourdre @#45.
See link below:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2765351.htm
Do you support things like this?
Suggest you also read some of the comments
10
Slightly OT but I have just had a revelation regarding the MSM treatment of Climategate. I’m sure it has occurred to others as well.
Imagine for a moment that the MSM treated Climategate for what it is; direct evidence of possibly the greatest, certainly the most expensive, scientific fraud in history. Not a conspiracy theory, but an actual global conspiracy mapped out for them in a handy easily searchable index, confirming a past wealth of circumstantial evidence. The story would run its course and heads would roll etc.
At some point when the dust settles and the scale of the Big Lie becomes apparent the public are going to start asking questions: How did this happen? Who was supposed to be minding the public policy store? And as more and more reputable scientists say “we told you so but you wouldn’t listen”, why weren’t we told about this before? The public will probably jumped to the not entirely inaccurate inference that the MSM were in on the Big Lie. They will be torn to pieces.
10
Was distracted by a call and left off my conclusion.
So maintenance of the AGW hypothesis by the MSM is not due to stubbornness or ideology but is essential for their survival.
10
yet another green tick for you Rumble.
I wonder if it’s a culture thing though. I’m not sure that Aussies are so easy to “stir up” as Americans or Europeans.
I also believe each individual is responsible for their own behaviour. If a point has to be made should we water it down in case a couple of nutcases might read it? Is that Jo’s responsibility?
Any case, I’m biassed so I prefer Jo’s sermons than Clive Hamilton or the nutjob Paul Watson of sea shepherd fame.
keep it up though Rumble, your tenacity is admirable and you deserve to be heard 🙂
10
Hmm Bruce at the end of the day I’d rather kids talked to their dads about climate change much more than I’d like acts of civil disobedience and violence. So I guess I for one will side with Clive. I read the comments… the word of the day is Fauxtrage.
10
Clive Hamilton is an attention-seeking jerk.
10
What? I though he would be your poster boy!
10
Just in case this gets missed from another post:
Woops, Willis Eschenbach seems to have made a basic blunder. Another conspiracy down in flames.
I notice Deltoid is now accusing him of “lying” about this. They’re all at it now.
Jo, perhaps you could post the graph of the Bureau of Meteorology’s high quality climate site data for Darwin Airport?
The adjustments are explained by NOAA
As Deltoid notes, the authors explain that:
A great deal of effort went into the homogeneity adjustments. Yet the effects of the homogeneity adjustments on global average temperature trends are minor (Easterling and Peterson 1995b). However, on scales of half a continent or smaller, the homogeneity adjustments can have an impact. On an individual time series, the effects of the adjustments can be enormous. These adjustments are the best we could do given the paucity of historical station history metadata on a global scale. But using an approach based on a reference series created from surrounding stations means that the adjusted station’s data is more indicative of regional climate change and less representative of local microclimatic change than an individual station not needing adjustments.
10
BaaHumbug. I think it is a cultural thing. Australian’s default reaction is to distrust authority, any authority, but they like order, and hold extremism in disdain.
Our language is however extremely robust. A foreign friend of mine thought there was a huge argument going on in the pub and desperately pleaded that “we all calm down.” We were quite shocked. It was simply a lively discussion about whether the local footy team should sack the coach.
That is also why our politicians have to work harder. Even when they win the PR battle they are only a hair’s breadth from oblivion with the public. That is why you don’t really hear much from our former Prime Ministers and statesmen in public life.
It is also why organised riots are so rare. As soon as someone climbed on top of a burning car and tried to direct the crowd, the crowd will walk away mumbling about people getting up themselves, and the football is on the telly, so see ya later.
So Rumble Mourdre what you see as inciting violence I see as plain speaking.
10
Mal (and others),
yes Scientific American is an embarrassment to my profession. If there are any subscribers out there please send me stories to “unpack”.
Please, if you comment on their site, copy that comment here and tell us if they do censor. I’ll start a thread just on that if need be.
Scientific American Rejects?
10
An embarrasment to part time gold investors and rabble rousing climate skeptic propagandists???
😉
10
Dean Turner and Dean McAskil,
PLain speaking thsi is not – “unpack” Jo’s words above and think about it.
Jo, so what is your profession?
10
Rumble Mourdre @#53,
Thanks for admitting Clive Hamilton is a jerk. His rant sounds like something straight out of Goerge Orwell’s 1984 – aka thought police.
Lets all try and keep a rational approach to the issues here.
After all, don’t we all want the best for humankind?
Hope that’a not too corny.
10
Rumble,
good on you for taking action instead of just sitting back. Apathy is what got us into this dreadful mess.
I’ve never advocated violent action. So you are opposed to me emphatically speaking my point of view and …. ooo… suggesting people email their elected reps eh? But it’s ok if our governments demand money by force of law, backed up by armed police, for reasons they won’t disclose with tactics that amount to bullying.
(One rule for you, and another for them).
There are times in history when we do need to take action and where we have to shake off our complacency and do something to protect the incredible wealth (of quality of life) that we have inherited from men and women who fought to the death to achieve it for us. Thank goodness we’re only talking about emailling, phoning and risking… our friendships.
10
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by John Leal, Joanne Nova. Joanne Nova said: The ClimateGate Virus href=http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/the-climategate-virus/ It infects all the institutions jouirnals, organizations […]
10
Mattb, My profession: in training and practice, it’s an odd speciality, a Science Communicator.
Sounds dull, but since we owe our lives and lifestyle to science I consider it a vital role to serve the public and help them understand the implications and explanations of discoveries, and debt we owe to the giants of science, as well as the sheer thrill of timeless curiosity of how things work.
Knowledge is power.
My profession has let us all down.
10
The great, great shame in all of this is that, in time (and probably not very much more time), “science” will have been exposed as shabby, compromised, and telling lies.
That does not do anything much for the faith of the populace. (After all, some 90% or so of the population DONT go to university and study science – so they have to take it at face value from those who are supposed to know.)
This will all set back the cause and good name of science for decades. What little faith there is in things like medical research will be shattered, and there will be much other collateral damage as well.
Such a shame.
10
RE: Dean McCaskill #49 & #50 – Grand lie, media will be seen as implicated by association.
As far as I can tell by the interviews being done on US tv at the moment there is the first semblance of discomfort coming through in the ranks of the MSM. It’s a slight disequilibrium for now because they thought this was an open and shutter. Climategate is a spanner in the works for a lazy journo. I have two of them in my immediate family, one a sceptic, one a lazy acquiescent believer who goes into an anxious fluster whenever I get through her defenses. I agree they have a bad moment coming up but they will change tack here at some point and the warmers won’t know what to do when the questions become pointed. Looking forward to it myself.
10
Ok now back to the nitty gritty
In the IPCC ARG4 SPM there is a figure spm2 detailing radiative forcing components. You can get it at the IPCC site.
They assign a LOSU (Level Of Scientific Understanding) to each of these forcings as follows…
CO2…………………..High
CH4, N2O, Halocarbons…..High
Ozone…………………Medium
Stratospheric WV from CH4.Low
Surface Albedo…………Medium Low
Aerosol Direct effect…..Medium Low
A’sol Cloud Albedo effect.Low
Linear Contrails……….Low
All of the above are Anthropogenic
Also listed is “Natural Forcing”
Solar Irradiance……….Low
No mention of solar cycles as natural effects.
So because these wags have a low understanding of so many of the above, especially the solar effect, they presume GHG’s must be the cause of any detected/perceived warming coz they have a high understanding of GHG’s. (arguable)
An analogy
Cops rush to a call to find a man on the ground covered in blood and dead. They see a woman standing near him with blood splatters on her body. They immediately arrest her because…welll….in the absence of any other suspects, she MUST HAVE done it.
Back to fig spm2. With a low or medium low understanding of so many forcings (after 16yrs of research) how can anyone be confident of their findngs? How can anyone “predict” future climate, as chaotic as it is, based on such low understanding.
To pass this of as “settled” science is nothing short of FRAUD and a SCAM and possibly collusion.
Any thiughts?
10
Back to SPM in ARG4
Page 5…”New data since the TAR now show that losses from
the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica have very
likely contributed to sea level rise over 1993 to 2003″.
Now to page 9…”Antarctic sea ice extent continues to show interannual variability and localised changes but no statistically significant average trends, consistent with the lack of warming reflected in atmospheric temperatures
averaged across the region”.
And to page 10…”It is likely that there has been signifi cant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent except Antarctica”.
So Antarctica has “very likely” contributed to sea level rise, but but but wait, there has been no warming in Antarctica.
In the absence of any evidence, I blame the penguins for playing “tricks” and “hiding the decline” in ice sheet cover.
10
Seems that in response to “Climategate” the AP has taken to labeling any and all who refuse to swallow the AGW KoolAid as “deniers” as if the scientific evidence were on par with the historical evidence of the “Holocaust”. This is really repugnant but not surprising considering who we are dealing with. Sen. Inhoff will be on Fox News with Chris Wallace this sunday along with the idiot Markey. Hope Inhoff is up to reading the recent stuff so he can dispose of the traditional courtesy and body slam Markey like he deserves.
10
Gee, Jo, thanks for the patronising bumfluff. With lines like that, you could get a job in a teddy bear factory. Oh and thanks for the tired old ploy of rebutting something I didn’t say.
But seriously Jo, what is this “our governments demand money by force of law, backed up by armed police, for reasons they won’t disclose with tactics that amount to bullying”? Have you stopped taking your medication? I mean, I’m REALLY worried about you now. Have you told your therapist about this? You should confide in a friend. These are not healthy thoughts. Perhaps you should take a break? This Copenhagen thing is clearly putting you under a lot of stress. Let’s do lunch. Call me.
10
Let me draw particular attention to this line again:
“OUR GOVERNMENTS DEMAND MONEY BY FORCE OF LAW, BACKED UP BY ARMED POLICE, FOR REASONS THEY WON’T DICLOSE WITH TACTICS THAT AMOUNT TO BULLYING?
Um, I mean, really, are you okay?
10
To: Rumble Mourdre (or is it ‘merde’).. Great stuff, really constructive debating!!! In Australia we have a nickname that fits you perfectly, ‘merchant banker’ !!! (Its rhyming slang possum).
10
Rumble… enough is enough, eh? I think you’ve made your point.
(And by the way – governments extracting money from the populace happens all the time. It’s called Tax. However, governments extracting money in the form of tax for what amounts to false pretences tends to make them look silly. Having the force of law to enforce your silliness looks like totalitarianism.)
One would like our governments to do what’s right. In the face of what appears to be ideology dressed up in science’s clothing, and having had this exposed, one would then hope a wise government paused for thought. Ours appears to be unwise, and resorting to name-calling. There are numerous unpleasant historical precedents which give one pause for thought. And concern.
10
Maybe this, maybe that, maybe, maybe, maybe.
There are weird and untrustworthy people all around, but sadly some of them have extraordinary power. Many of those in power will offer you guarantees to make your life safe, they never deliver on these guarantees, they never take personal responsibility for their actions. You can’t make your life safe by running and hiding from a million maybes, anyone who promises you the impossible is merely taking you for a sucker.
By the way, look up what “creative destruction” means. It is about dismantling organisations that no longer serve a useful purpose.
10
Rumble I’m starting to lose respect for you. You sound almost like your on angry pills.
Please tone it down a little (though I realize I don’t have a right to even ask this).
Yes you might respond by saying we should tone it down re: CRU wags etc but if you feel like you are their knight in shining armour for whatever reason then please state that reason.
10
@ Baa Humbug
I agree that it is fraud, but it is (TM) even worse than previously thought.
The IPCC ignore natural phenomena like El nino and La nina and PDO which have massive effects because they have no way of modelling natural climate effects. They then give up any pretense of being able to predict the actual real global temperature. Instead, they develop a set of simplified computer models, none of which are physically realistic, and all of which assume that only CO2 causes long term warming. They then calculate the results of each the models, extrapolated for 100 years ( giving a range of 1 to 6 degrees) and then average them to get a predicted temperature increase of 3 Degrees.
The draft Copenhagen treaty stating that the temperature increase will be limited to 2 Degrees Celcius has the target percentage carbon reductions to be achieved left blank so it can be worked out by political horse trading.
What then is the probability that the real temperature increase in 100 years will actually be equal
to the ensemble average of a set of totally UNphysical CO2 based models none of which are able to model major natural climate phenomena?
Nobody knows the odds! it might be a 100 to 1 shot or even Buckleys chance.
It is just totally unscientific nonsense if you just think about it logically!
It is only possible for them to maintain their aura of infallibility by being totally non-transparent and not releasing their data or computer model source code and suppressing all dissenting views as Deniers.
If it was all reviewed openly and objectively and independently people would just see straight through them.
10
Rumble @ 70,
If you don’t think governments take money by the initiation of force from those who earn it, just try NOT paying your taxes. You will soon experience “the force of law”. If you resist, you will be looking down the barrel of a gun, be put in shackles, hauled off to prison, and have your property confiscated to pay your assigned “debt to society” plus penalties. That is if you are lucky. This would be acceptable to you only if you believe the government owns you, that you are nothing but a slave to the state, and that you think that is a perfectly acceptable situation.
This is NOT acceptable to most of the rest of us. We know that we have a right to our lives and that the ONLY obligation we have to our fellow man is NOT to violate their rights by initiating force against their person and property. ALL other interactions must be freely and mutually voluntary. Governments don’t seem to understand and agree with this principle so they are the primary violators of individual rights and have been thus since the first government was established. Simply because its called government, it does not make acting like a gang of thugs right.
10
I don’t know if you would call what I’m trying to do a gimmick but I decided to try and do something constructive about spreading the climategate message, the only way I know how.
Hence my alternative Act On Co2 Advert Campaign and a Video to go with it.
I’ve tried to make it all as appealing as I can to all types of bloggers and forums, in the English speaking world, so some of the Adverts are sweary and some are not. The campaign has been steadily moving up the google pages and has now reached page one but we need to keep up momentum.
So, if you have a couple of minutes to spare please take a look and I’d be grateful for any help with spreading the word.
G.O.T. 😉
10
JS #75
Agree totally.
heres another example. in chap 6 fig 6.13 shows volcanic, solar and “other” forcings. This graph tells a good story.
The MWP is right there, the LIA is there. Contemporary solar forcing is similar to that of the MWP. If you continue the graph into the near future (visually even) we should be entering another Little Ice Age anytime now.
It is ONLY when CO2 is added to the models that the graph goes hockey stick.
But if CO2 in the atmoph. is already saturated as many claim, there should be no hockey stick.
What the world should be contemplating is another cool period. At least they should admit this is just as “likely” “unlikely” as their scenarios.
10
Hungary
http://www.parlament.hu/internet/plsql/ogy_kpv.kepv_rip?P_CALL_MOD=%23KEPV_RIP_DATE&P_CKL=38&P_DATUM=2009.12.11&P_BIZ=null&P_EGYENI=I&P_TERULETI=I&P_ORSZAGOS=I&P_MEZO=null&P_SORREND=null
Click on name, scroll down, find email.
10
Lionell,
You have a gift for driving the nail in at exactly the right spot.
Now I don’t mind being taxed for those things that only government can reasonably provide: fire and police protection; street and highway maintenance; national defense; there’s a long list. But I mind it a lot when I’m taxed and don’t get what I’m paying for. I’m even angrier when I’m taxed and the money is used against me. And it’s been a long time since I was getting what I’ve been paying for and my money is being used against me constantly. We have failed to keep watch over those we elect to serve us.
I hope that the growing awareness of the phony global warming scare can grow into more skepticism of what’s being done by government in general. I may be dreaming but I can hope.
10
E-addresses to members of the Swedish parliament can be found here (incl possible web pages, to the far right).
http://maila-riksdagen.webs.com/Riksdagsadresser.htm
Add @riksdagen.se to the MP’s name (to the left in the table). E-mail format is firstname.lastname@riksdagen.se.
E-addresses to Swedish ministrys are usually in the form firstname.lastname@/areaofministry/.ministry.se (note: yes, in English – eg carl.bildt@foreign.ministry.se for the foreign minister). The general starting page of the government is http://www.regeringen.se, which also has a button for switching to English.
–Ahrvid
10
Rumble,
You have steadfastly argued everything except the one little detail that this is all about. Where is the evidence that CO2 is or even can cause warming of our precious planet? If you have any or know of any, now is the time to make it public.
10
Roy @ 80,
Thanks for noticing. More specifically, thanks for being able to notice.
10
Great essay here
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=409454&c=2
10
Lionell,
Sorry to take up more space on what may seem a side issue. But therein lies the root of our problem. It took me maybe half my life to finally realize that critical thinking is AWOL (Absent Without Leave) in the thinking machinery of much of the human race — and to realize that I’d been developing some critical thinking ability myself.
If you can’t admit that you don’t know everything (and I don’t); if you can’t develop that platform that, as you’ve said, defines you; if you can’t question what you believe to see if it stands up over time; if you can’t develop a healthy skepticism to give you some clue as to what’s legitimate and what’s not; and worst of all in this day of readily available information, if you can’t go looking to see what supports some wild claim and what others say about it; then you’re doomed to fall for every scam that comes along.
Our institutions are riddled with nonsense because of failure of critical thinking.
I have no idea how we can change this. But perhaps at least I should say thanks to you for being a sharp critical thinker. And certainly a better one than I am.
10
GOT #77
Very clever and original. Personally not too keen on the language (limits where I can distribute) but very well done. Keep up the good work. Different kinds of expression for different folks so good on you m8
10
Sometimes it helps to use something someone else has written as a starting point to speed the process along.
Here’s what I sent to my two seantors and congressman on 25 November. I did get a nice reply from one of them so far and a commitment to not let things progress as busniness as usual. One can only hope that every voice makes at least a little difference.
Dear Senator ___________,
I am writing as a concerned scientist and citizen of Idaho with respect to the recent developments regarding the obvious scientific fraud committed by several international scientific groups in attempting to establish evidence for man-made global warming.
As I am sure you are well aware, the release (accidental or otherwise) of annotated computer codes, emails and related documents detailing intent to deceive the public, discredit and discourage dissenting scientific research, and suppress or destroy data and evidence relating to temperature records by the UK University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit is a serious development.
This egregious behavior on the part of the British researchers as well as numerous US scientists is a betrayal of the public trust, fraudulent use of taxpayer money and should be fully investigated by the United States Congress. The sweeping policy reforms being considered as a result of the fraudulent work conducted by these individuals must be immediately suspended until the full truth of the matter can be ascertained.
These would include attempts by the U.S. EPA to designate carbon dioxide a pollutant, any carbon trading based Cap and Trade bill and any activity by the United States at the upcoming Copenhagen Summit. In addition, any other pending regulation or legislation aimed at restricting carbon or so called green house gas emissions should be tabled or suspended as well.
I realize these are sweeping and generalized points but this is a very serious development and literally trillions of dollars and many aspects of the United States economy are at stake.
I am very angry Senator _________ and you should be too. As a scientist, I have long suspected something like this might be going on but the depth of the fraud and arrogance on the part of the perpetrators is literally breathtaking.
I urge you to fully support any investigation into this matter that you deem useful.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
10
GaryL
I sent something similar to my two senators (Pennsylvania) at about the same time. One (Arlen Specter) did not respond at all. The other Bob Caseym responded with typical democratic platitudes about how impartant our environment is and how Dopenhagen is an important process in which he plans to involve the U.S. etc etc etc. He did not respond to my concerns at all – of course HE never saw my letter – some aid simply fired off a letter from the appropriate category which you must now check off in your e-mail inquiry.
I don’t even know if was actually read. If there was place to check “For” or “Against” an issue I would feel as though my voice had been counted. As it is, I checked the climate change box and have a feeling the computer simply sent off the immediate response.
I can’t stand the impersonal uninformative computer based workings that have evolved. I feel that “the people” are no longer really connected to their elected representatives, but that our machines are connected to their machines.
10
Amedation:
I just received the following from Arlen Specter:
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding energy and climate change legislation. The science is clear-global warming is real and it is manmade. I have long supported legislation that responds to the urgency of the climate change challenge with a politically viable, economically responsible, technologically feasible, and scientifically justifiable strategy.
Canned platitudes and BS
10
The Climategate emails are like a casual match in a very dry field—fire and ashes will be the season’s yield.
10
Tom G
I’ve had the same experience and more than once. They are unresponsive to their constituents, self-righteous, arrogant and think themselves completely above the people they were elected to serve. The party line is their only script. I don’t even get a climate change box. The closest thing is “Environment”.
I doubt that very many could come close to understanding the science. After all, they pay attention to Al Gore. They’ve simply drunk the Kool-Aid.
But we need to keep it up anyway. Never give up! The tide is turning.
10
Your welcome
10
[…] revelations of the fraud cooked into the computer programs that create such charts will. The ClimateGate Virus […]
10
It is interesting how false information sticks around. For example, the truth is that Nixon did not destroy the Watergate tapes, and had to resign the Presidency as a result. Yet, as your cartoon shows, the lie persists.
10
GOODBYE (and good riddance, you will say)
To all those who have said kind words, given thoughtful responses and kept an open mind about me in my short but eventful sojourn here, I say thank you.
To those who I have offended – well, sorry about that: you may not like my tactics but my time is short and they are a necessary evil for a “difficult” woman such as me.
I hoped that I might find here enough people who could debate their views on the climate change issue and give me an insight into WHY so many people are putting so much time and energy into tearing each other to shreds about it.
Now I understand this group a lot better. Roy, Co2isnotevil, Anne-Kit, Tel, BaaHumbug, MattB, Steve “Mr Methane” Short, etc are thoughtful people and worth listening to. I have enjoyed some of their intelligent and good-natured debate. I have been, shall we say, “disappointed”, by much of the rest. Some of the information sharing has been of value.
However, I can’t in conscience continue to contribute positively to this blog. My problem is not with what it is trying to do or why it is doing it (although the lack of a statement of principles still leaves that unclear). I am all for open debate, people getting involved, especially women, and questioning authority and the status quo.
No, my problem is with the way it is conducted.
First, politics is the art of the possible, of negotiation and compromise. Finding a middle ground on an isue as complex and high-stakes as this one is about as tough as it gets. Yet the conceit, narrow-mindedness and hyperbole many of you complain of in “the other side” is here in just as many ways, too. The what-goes-around-comes-around line may be true but it is ultimately unproductive – it does nothing to advance the debate. You end up like feuding hillbillies. Ghandi, Mandela and Luther King moved mountains.
Second, there is a stumbling block here that I do not have the time or energy to tackle, and probably would not be able to make much headway in any case. It is one of the foundation stones of your broad position. So many of you have said words to the effect that “we don’t have to prove anything” or “we’re not the ones proposing to change the world’s economy”. Sorry, but you do not live in an ethics-free, consequences-free zone. No-one does. That is simply a moral cop-out.
If you were to succeed, for example, in persuading the world to do nothing and the current scientific consensus were later to be shown to be correct, let’s just say that you might consider more than ruefully that you had won a Pyrrhic victory.
In my view, you need to openly question yourselves as rigorously on this point as you do the “alarmists”. You will not persuade me – nor, I suspect, will you be taken seriously by a majority of the public and the politicians – until you do.
Finally, it is not the mere act of opposing action that has consequences. What drives me away from this blog most is the manner of the challenge – vilifying science and scientists, fostering prejudice against people who are no doubt as well-intentioned as you, rabble-rousing, playing to people’s fears and paranoias, undermining trust and public confidence and so on: all of this has consequences, too, and I see little or no hope of that being debated or considered thoughtfully here.
Jo, I commend you for effort and ambition but I think you’re too sure you’re right and too blinkered by your self-righteous indignation – and that’s not a combination that appeals to me.
So goodbye, good luck and be kind.
Rumble
10
Rumble Mourdre #55
Since you keep pushing Deltiod’s blog at us, I would make the assumption that you also criticize him when he goes off the rails. So I’m wondering if you have informed him that Sarah Palin is not a “he” or a “him”?
I did a fast look, but maybe I missed it.
Oh, and I couldn’t help noticing your comment to Joanne to “Whip the masses into a frenzy!” I’ve read everything here and I don’t see any frenzy i.e.: a state or period of uncontrolled excitement or wild behavior. Could you please point out an instance of frenzy in “one of the masses” on this blog that has been possibly “whipped into” such a state? I missed that too.
Thanks in advance.
10
@Rumble 95
I dont know if you read this or not. But i would want to say something also.
Funny thing is, i think that the first half of youre statement is very good. I think everybody should always try to think about there own reasons. But then in youre second half you start to insult people. (Hillbillies en such).
The other thing what i do not understand is that you act as if you know a lot about politics, but in my mind youre acting like the bull in the china cabinet. I think that if you want to find a middle ground in a group of people that do not have the same opinion as you, you should not start yell and curse about it. I think that wont help.
10
Here is the link for Germany:
http://www.abgeordnetenwatch.de
You can ask the MPs questions, not just those from your electorate, but all of them. Sometimes they even bother to respond.
Keep up the good work!
10
Alas, poor rumble.
Why waste the words of great people by not using them when apropos?
“The rudeness that hath appeared in me, have I learnt from my entertainment” Viola, Twelth Night
“Pardon, good gentles. I thought all things wild here, and therefore put I on the countenance of rudeness…” Orlando, As You Like It.
Let anyone be excluded from participation, called names, reviled, reported incorrectly and evilly to the public at large, have their intelligence compared to Flat Earthers, have their ethics and morals compared to Holocaust deniers, adn them give them ONE chance to prove to the world that such is not so – and a chance that has only a moment before being overwhelmed in the rhetoric, to expose their erstwhile accusers of being the liars, cheats, deceivers, frauds that they truly are.
Waht should we do? Raise our ahnds and politely wait while the peole who have tried to bury us call on us to see what we have to say?
Well, that would be polite – after all, they are our superiors adn betters, and we are just idiotic, unrealistic, denieras who don’t really deserve a chance and wouldn’t be given one even now in the face of the AGW crowds patent guilt if we didn’t seize it and ATTACK.
Too hot in the kitchern Rumble?
Good, Good riddance
Tom
10
Yes Roy Hogue
UN Controlled by a powerful behind the scenes Global Elite who also control the IMF and Central Banks. Whereby their Global Warming fraud is one of their main con jobs to get the world to accept centralised political control for a one world government whereby all soverighnty of the nation state is abolished. Copenhagen is their big opening move for this goal. Stay tuned the next couple of years are gonna be very interesting indeed.
10
Rumble,
You’ve been a worthy debater for your cause, even if sometimes hard to take and sometimes off the mark. But you’ve still missed the important point. We can’t find any support for the assertion that CO2 is the villain here. We’ve asked for evidence, not even a proof but just credible evidence. If someone could offer such evidence and it could stand up under reasonable examination the nature of this debate would be quite different. It would no longer be whether to do something or not, but what to do — big difference there.
If CO2 is not the villain then even drastic cuts in human CO2 emissions will not solve any of the problems. Getting the science right counts. And the more so when the stakes are as high as they are.
10
Rod Smith,
Tesla could have used a good dose of math. If he hadn’t been so disdainful of it he might be known today for the really useful things he invented, like the induction motor. Instead he’s known for the Tesla Coil, one of which sits in the Griffith Park Observatory in Los Angeles impressing visitors with an arc I’d estimate to be almost 4 feet long. But Tesla was after a way to transmit useful amounts of power over significant distances without wires. He failed at it after all the time he spent on it because he didn’t believe the inverse cube law. The math counts.
It’s tragic that such a gifted inventor isn’t remembered for better things than his spectacular but failed experiment.
10
Rumble’s sulky exit reminds me of so may exchanges I have had with the far left. Simply, they are not used to opposition. Outside of their comfy little circles they don’t handle questioning well. They go from haughty/superior condescension to bruised and hurt very quickly. One even said,”you should learn to be a bit more accepting of other peoples views”. Fair enough, but this guy actually started out ridiculing me. Sound familair?
10
Politicians views won’t be believed and journalists views won’t be either …but as the scientific method used by IPCC lead scientists is at the heart of this issue , it must be that scientists of Australia come out and PUBLISH their view of truthfulness of the data and its presentation by the IPCC.
How we can get this to happen is the challenge… I sure hope someone can find a way.
10
[…] If the “global warming” scam disturbs you, click here to contact your local politician (various countries). […]
10
What a coincidence!
1. Roy #82 asks Rumble “Where is the evidence that CO2 is or even can cause warming of our precious planet? If you have any or know of any, now is the time to make it public.”
2. Exit stage left – Rumble’s next post #95 is his “Goodbye post”.
And there’s the nub – the CO2 thing is at the core of the AGW platform and it doesn’t stack up. And Rumble knows it and when called on it, scuttles off.
Don’t be surprised if Rumble comes back – Trolls have to feed their addiction for self-indulgent stirring – like a child tormenting an ant mount with a stick.
10
I have been under the impression for decades that it was Tesla that invented AC which solved the long distance transmission problem. Matter of fact, I think his system is essentially the same as we use today.
And how could they have made Frankenstein movies without Tesla coils? (Poor attempt at humor there!!)
The quote was meant to be a poke in the eye to all these pseudo-scientists who seem to think they can divine mathematically what a temperature record should have been.
10
Rumble: “First, politics is the art of the possible, of negotiation and compromise. Finding a middle ground on an isue as complex and high-stakes …” blather, blather, and blather some more.
I thought this was climate science, not climate politics.
Typical leftist. Views the world through the prism of politics. Everything is politics.
10
I am not a Climate Change denier. I freely acknowledge that climate changes, always has and will most certainly continue to do so. It did so before there were human beings and will do so after humans as we know them have ceased to be. So long as the planet continues to exist, climate change will be a constant variable.
If anyone is in denial it is the AGW promoters and those gullible sheeple who believe the corrupted “science” that has been marketed to them by the fraudulent “scientists”, the special interest groups, lobbyists, the UN and its perverted organs, the politicians, the corporations – big business, banking and finance, the media.
These are the true deniers – the Science deniers, History deniers, Geology deniers…
10
Rod,
I realized the intent of your quote. It was a good poke too.
Tesla was indeed responsible for our current 3 phase power transmission system. His disdain for the math has always puzzled me and my point was that the math does count. Tesla was a very gifted inventor and yet he’s known more as a “mad scientist” than what he was, one of the most important contributors to modern technology.
10
Gary (#109): “These are the true deniers – the Science deniers, History deniers, Geology deniers…”
You forgot “Nature deniers”.
10
For twenty years good scientists have been vilified and smeared. Singer won a libel case against Al Gore. Michael, Happer and others lost their jobs. DeSmog are paid smear-bloggers for a PR company. And now Rumble turns up, now that we have proof that the smearer-team was corrupt and fraudulent, and thinks we should show the restraint that the other team, with billions in funding, and no evidence, never showed themselves?
Hypocritical.
Rumble, if you read Deltoid’s bully-boy anti-science blog for too long it will screw your head. You arrived too late here for the science debate we had months ago (tho we’d talk evidence if only you knew what that was.). Deltoid by the way, lost badly and here too.
Rumble, BTW, I tried to send you a thank you and query for one point direct to your email. I am glad you were more polite than some who disagree. But it seems you missed my email. The response I got both times was “delivery error: dd This user doesn’t have a yahoo.com account”.
10
This stopped being science some time ago. We could argue about exactly when that happened but probably about when the emails were leaked out.
The fundamental problem is reproducibility. I’m well aware that I can’t operate a worldwide network of temperature measurement stations. I can’t put my own satellites into orbit to scan infra red bands. I can’t re-measure a temperature reading from 1940. Thus, I am depending on other people to provide publicly accessible data for me to be able to make decisions about where I should put my vote.
This leaves me with the problem of how to judge my sources:
* Do any of them have something to gain by a particular outcome?
* Do they follow what I would regard as good practice in data handling, archival methodology, and documentation of all processes involved?
* Do they provide any means to spot-check their work?
* Is there any other evidence (e.g. leaked emails) that would weight my trust of this evidence?
Politics becomes a factor in these considerations. It’s not the way I would prefer to be doing science, but it is the situation at hand.
10
[…] Via Joanne Nova […]
10
Update on non-warming in Copenhagen: As emergency AGW conference continues, it is perhaps ironic to calmly study some weather information readily available on the internet. I apologize that the figures are not absolutely precise because they are taken from graphs at weatheronline.co.uk. Anyone can check my calculations, which took about 20 minutes and were not taxpayer funded.
In the last 28 years (as far as the online records go back), the highest December temperature in Copenhagen was 11 degrees C and that was back in 1983. Over these years, the average highest December temperature was around 7 C.
First day: a high of 7 C, exactly the same as the average high of the last 28 years and 4 degrees COOLER than the high of the last 28 years.
Second day: a high of 7 C, the same.
Third day: a high of 6 C, 5 degrees COOLER than the December high of the last 28 years.
Fourth day: a high of 6 C
Fifth day: a high of 5 C, 6 degrees COOLER than the December high of the last 28 years.
Can someone please point this out to the Met, the BBC and all the eminent and learned delegates?
10
Dr Ross Taylor – You probably made the mistake of using a simple calculator, maybe a sliderule, or even possibly doing it in your head!
I am sure if these figures were fed into the Met Offices’s super computer, it would prove that temperatures are really increasing. They must be in Bracknell – the damn thing uses a staggering 1.2MW of electricity…
10
Jo:
You write:
Sorry, but I disagree because Science Communicators cannot communicate what has been hidden from them.
I have previously posted this on on another thread, but it seems desirable to post it again here.
It demonstrates that 6 years ago The Team knew the estimates of average global temperature (mean global temperature, MGT) were worthless and they acted to prevent publication of proof of this.
The most important email among those hacked (?) from CRU may turn out to be one that I wrote 6 years ago. I had forgotten it but Willis Essenbach found it among the hacked (?) emails and circulated it. I copy it here then explain its meaning and significance.
The email is this.
From: RichardSCourtney@aol.com
To: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, m.allen1@physics.ox.ac.uk, Russell.Vose@noaa.gov
Subject: Re: Workshop: Reconciling Vertical Temperature Trends
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 18:42:59 EST
Cc: trenbert@cgd.ucar.edu, timo.hameranta@pp.inet.fi, Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov, ceforest@mit.edu, sokolov@mit.edu, phstone@mit.edu, ekalnay@atmos.umd.edu, richard.w.reynolds@noaa.gov, christy@atmos.uah.edu, roy.spencer@msfc.nasa.gov, benjie.norris@nsstc.uah.edu, kostya@atmos.umd.edu, Norman.Grody@noaa.gov, Thomas.C.Peterson@noaa.gov, sfbtett@metoffice.com, penner@umich.edu, dian.seidel@noaa.gov, trenbert@ucar.edu, wigley@ucar.edu, pielke@atmos.colostate.edu, climatesceptics@yahoogroups.com, aarking1@jhu.edu, bjorn@ps.au.dk, cfk @lanl.gov, c.defreitas@auckland.ac.nz, cidso@co2science.org, dwojick@shentel.net, douglass@pas.rochester.edu, dkaroly@ou.edu, mercurio@jafar.hartnell.cc.ca.us, fredev@mobilixnet.dk, seitz@rockvax.rockefeller.edu, Heinz.Hug@t-online.de, hughel@comcast.net, jahlbeck@ab
Dear All:
The excuses seem to be becoming desperate. Unjustified assertion that I fail to understand “Myles’ comments and/or work on trying the detect/attribute climate change” does not stop the attribution study being an error. The problem is that I do understand what is being done, and I am willing to say why it is GIGO.
Tim Allen said;
In a message dated 19/11/03 08:47:16 GMT Standard Time, m.allen1@physics.ox.ac.uk writes:
“I would just like to add that those of us working on climate change detection and attribution are careful to mask model simulations in the same way that the observations have been sampled, so these well-known dependencies of nominal trends on the trend-estimation technique have no bearing on formal detection and attribution results as quoted, for example, in the IPCC TAR.”
I rejected this saying: At 09:31 21/11/2003, RichardSCourtney@aol.com wrote:
“It cannot be known that the ‘masking’ does not generate additional spurious trends. Anyway, why assume the errors in the data sets are geographical and not?. The masking is a ‘fix’ applied to the model simulations to adjust them to fit the surface data known to contain spurious trends. This is simple GIGO.”
Now, Tim Osborn says of my comment;
In a message dated 21/11/03 10:04:56 GMT Standard Time, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk writes:
“Richard’s statement makes it clear, to me at least, that he misunderstands Myles’ comments and/or work on trying the detect/attribute climate change.
As far as I understand it, the masking is applied to the model to remove those locations/times when there are no observations. This is quite different to removing those locations which do not match, in some way, with the observations – that would clearly be the wrong thing to do. To mask those that have no observations, however, is clearly the right thing to do – what is the point of attempting to detect a simulated signal of climate change over some part of (e.g.) the Southern Ocean if there are no observations there in which to detect the expected signal? That would clearly be pointless.”
Yes it would. And I fully understand Myles’ comments. Indeed, my comments clearly and unarguably relate to Myles comments. But, as my response states, Myles’ comments do not alter the fact that the masked data and the unmasked data contain demonstrated false trends. And the masking may introduce other spurious trends. So, the conducted attribution study is pointless because it is GIGO. Ad hominem insults don’t change that.
And nor does the use of peer review to block my publication of the facts of these matters.
Richard
The great importance of the matter in the quoted email may not be apparent to some. Therefore, I provide this brief background explanation.
Climate change ‘attribution studies’ use computer models to assess possible causes of global climate change. Known effects that cause climate change are input to a computer model of the global climate system, and the resulting output of the model is compared to observations of the real world. Anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW) is assumed to be indicated by any rise in average global temperature (mean global temperature, MGT) that occurred in reality but is not accounted by the known effects in the model.
Clearly, any error in determinations of changes to MGT provides incorrect attribution of AGW.
The various determinations of the changes to MGT differ and, therefore, there is no known accurate amount of MGT change. But the erroneous MGT change was being input to the models (garbage in, GI) so the amount of AGW attributed by the studies was wrong (garbage out, GO) because ‘garbage in’ gives ‘garbage out’ (GIGO). The attribution studies that provide indications of AGW are GIGO.
I and others attempted to publish a discussion paper that attempted to explain the problems with analyses of MGT. We compared the data and trends of the Jones et al., GISS and GHCN data sets. These teams each provide 95% confidence limits for their results. However, the results of the teams differ by more than double those limits in several years, and the data sets provided by the teams have different trends. Since all three data sets are compiled from the same available source data (i.e. the measurements mostly made at weather stations using thermometers), and purport to be the same metric (i.e. MGT anomaly), this is surprising. Clearly, the methods of compilation of MGT time series can generate spurious trends (where ‘spurious’ means different from reality), and such spurious trends must exist in all but at most one of the data sets.
So, we considered MGT according to two interpretations of what it could be; viz.
(i) MGT is a physical parameter that – at least in principle – can be measured;
or
(ii) MGT is a ‘statistic’; i.e. an indicator derived from physical measurements.
These two understandings derive from alternative considerations of the nature of MGT:
If the MGT is assumed to be the mean temperature of the volume of air near the Earth’s surface over a period of time, then MGT is a physical parameter indicated by the thermometers (mostly) at weather stations that is calculated using the method of mixtures (assuming unity volume, specific heat, density etc). We determined that if MGT is considered as a physical parameter that is measured, then the data sets of MGT are functions of their construction. Attributing AGW – or anything else – to a change that is a function of the construction of MGT is inadmissable.
Alternatively:
If the thermometers (mostly) at weather stations are each considered to indicate the air temperature at each measurement site and time, then MGT is a statistic that is computed as being an average of the total number of thermometer indications. But if MGT is considered to be a statistic then it can be computed in several ways to provide a variety of results, each of different use to climatologists. In such a way, the MGT is similar in nature to a Retail Price Index, which is a statistic that can be computed in different ways to provide a variety of results, each of which has proved useful to economists. If MGT is considered to be a statistic of this type, then MGT is a form of average. In which case, the word ‘mean’ in ‘mean global temperature’ is a misnomer, because although there are many types of average, a set of measurements can only have one mean. Importantly, if MGT is considered to be an indicative statistic then the differences between the values and trends of the data sets from different teams indicate that the teams are monitoring different climate effects. But if the teams are each monitoring different climate effects then each should provide a unique title for their data set that is indicative of what is being monitored. Also, each team should state explicitly what its data set of MGT purports to be monitoring.
Thus, we determined that – whichever way MGT is considered – MGT is not an appropriate metric for use in attribution studies.
However, the compilers of the MGT data sets frequently alter their published data of past MGT (sometimes they have altered the data in each of several successive months). Hence, our paper always contained incorrect MGT data because the MGT data kept changing. The MGT data always changed between submission of the paper and completion of the peer review process. Thus, the frequent changes to MGT data sets prevented publication of the paper.
1. I can prove that we submitted the paper for publication.
2. I can prove that Nature rejected it for a silly reason; viz.
“We publish original data and do not publish comparisons of data sets”
3. I can prove that whenever we submitted the paper to a journal one or more of the the Jones et al., GISS and GHCN data sets changed so either
4. The paper was rejected because
(a) it assessed incorrect data
or
(b) we had to withdraw the paper to correct the data it assessed.
But I cannot prove who or what caused this.
Whatever you call this method of preventing publication of a paper, you cannot call it science.
But this method prevented publication of information that proved the estimates of MGT and AGW are wrong and the amount by which they are wrong cannot be known.
It should also be noted that there is no possible calibration for the estimates of MGT. The data sets keep changing for unknown (and unpublished) reasons although there is no obvious reason to change a datum for MGT that is for decades in the past. It seems that the compilers of the data sets adjust their data in attempts to agree with each other.
Methods to correct these problems could have been considered 6 years ago if publication of my paper had not been blocked.
Additionally, I point out that the AGW attribution studies are wrong in principle for two reasons.
Firstly, they are ‘argument from ignorance’.
Such an argument is not new. For example, in the Middle Ages experts said, “We don’t know what causes crops to fail: it must be witches: we must eliminate them.” Now, experts say, “We don’t know what causes global climate change: it must be emissions from human activity: we must eliminate them.” Of course, they phrase it differently saying they can’t match historical climate change with known climate mechanisms unless an anthropogenic effect is included. But evidence for this “anthropogenic effect” is no more than the evidence for witches.
Secondly, they use an attribution study to ‘prove’ what can only be disproved by attribution.
In an attribution study the system is assumed to be behaving in response to suggested mechanism(s) that is modelled, and the behaviour of the model is compared to the empirical data. If the model cannot emulate the empirical data then there is reason to suppose that the suggested mechanism is not the cause (or at least not the sole cause) of the changes recorded in the empirical data.
It is important to note that attribution studies can only be used to reject hypothesis that a mechanism is a cause for an observed effect. Ability to attribute a suggested cause to an effect is not evidence that the suggested cause is the real cause in part or in whole. (To understand this, consider the game of Cludo. At the start of the game it is possible to attribute the ‘murder’ to all the suspects. As each piece of evidence is obtained then one of the suspects can be rejected because he/she can no longer be attributed with the murder).
But the CRU/IPCC attribution studies claim that the ability to attribute AGW as a cause of climate change is evidence that AGW caused the change (because they only consider one suspect for the cause although there could be many suspects both known and unknown).
Then, in addition to those two pieces of pure pseudo-science – as my paper demonstrates – the attribution studies use estimates of climate changes that are known to be wrong!
This does not give confidence that the MGT data sets provide reliable quantification of change to global temperature.
And none of this could have been reported to the public by Science Communicators because there was no way they could have known and validated any of it.
Richard
10
Dave,
As a computer scientist I’d be interested in any info you have as to what they’re running. Every bit of energy used by a computer ends up as heat. So 1.2 MW concentrated in one computer would melt their whole facility — a bit of an exaggeration, but one computer just wouldn’t need that kind of power. They must be running a number of computers, other equipment, air conditioning, lighting, etc.
10
Of course this is all agenda driven. A great insight into this is at:
http://green-agenda.com/ where you can find many statements such as the following:
“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
– Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations
And a nice seven minute video quickly en-capsulizes the hidden background to climate nonsense:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTbyjUnYmMs&feature=player_embedded#
10
@ Roy Hogue: – Just Google “met office supercomputer”. There are plenty of links to give you more info. I guess the quoted figure includes the power used by aircon & lighting etc.
10
Dave,
I found a link with what I was looking for. It’s the computer itself that uses the 1.2 MW of power. What’s harder to tell is exactly what IBM model it is. I couldn’t spend too much time on it. But they have a Blue Gene/L that looks about right. In any case, this thing is dozens (if not hundreds) of individual computers linked together along with more memory than I would have dreamed possible just 10 or 15 years ago. The whole thing is said to take up what we in the states would call two football fields. In any case, from the picture I found it goes on into the background a long way.
It’s too bad they’ll use it to predict the effects of global warming along with weather forecasting.
10
No computer ever made will be able to predict nature.
10
Dave,
True in general. However how well specific aspects of nture can be predicted depends on how far in the future you want to predict. Weather forecasting for the next several days is getting better. Longer term, no.
There is a lot of incentive to study the matter and improve the forecasting capability. For instance, aviation is very much affected by weather and short term (24 hour) forecasts are qute good. But can they predict exactly what time a storm will hit a given location? No. Can they predict exactly what the temperature will be? No.
10
“weather and short term (24 hour) forecasts are qute good”
I disagree. It’s pretty easy to have a guess at what the weather will be like tomorrow. If you just kept saying that is will be “partly cloudy with a chance of rain” which is what they say 80% of the time, you are pretty much always right.
Weather models are hopeless. Climate models are utterly ridiculous.
10
If they use mainframe computer on the institutions, I very sure
there are backups where you can find the deletet mails!
10
Sir, you are absolutely correct when referring to area forecasts, but I suggest you look at TAFs for airdromes for a while before passing judgement. They are quite a bit more specific than ‘partly cloudy with a chance of rain.’ Pick one major airport and watch bad weather march over and thru then clear up. Generally, they do quite well with the forecasts.
10
The simple fact is: There is no ‘independent’ research in to climate change.
Researchers depending on Government funding, Governments want ‘Global warming’ to be a big issue to justify their carbon taxes.
However, I agree that we should be doing more to wean ourselves away from fossil fuels and we also need to do more to understand and adapt to a changing climate.
10
[…] by the IPCC, published in Nature and Science, and defended by the National Academy of Science. link to article When all the so called experts are found out to be liars why should we back outrages schemes like […]
10
[…] damaging was the leak? Very, very damaging. And not just for the motley […]
10
[…] The ClimateGate Virus […]
10
[…] JoNova Friday, Dec 11th, 2009 […]
10
[…] damaging was the leak? Very, very damaging. And not just for the motley […]
10
[…] I keep saying, Climategate is a virus that will not go away. It shocked environmental journalists, earned them dark looks from editors and everyone else in the […]
10