A week after my colleague James Delingpole , on his Telegraph blog, coined the term "Climategate" to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.
The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.
Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.
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 they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.
Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the "hockey stick" were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre , an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann's supporters, calling themselves "the Hockey Team", and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.
The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC's scientific elite, including not just the "Hockey Team", such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC's 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore's ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself.
There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That ), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.
They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.
This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.
But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand.
In each of these countries it has been possible for local scientists to compare the official temperature record with the original data on which it was supposedly based. In each case it is clear that the same trick has been played – to turn an essentially flat temperature chart into a graph which shows temperatures steadily rising. And in each case this manipulation was carried out under the influence of the CRU.
What is tragically evident from the Harry Read Me file is the picture it gives of the CRU scientists hopelessly at sea with the complex computer programmes they had devised to contort their data in the approved direction, more than once expressing their own desperation at how difficult it was to get the desired results.
The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.
Back in 2006, when the eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre's demolition of the "hockey stick", he excoriated the way in which this same "tightly knit group" of academics seemed only too keen to collaborate with each other and to "peer review" each other's papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang. In light of the latest revelations, it now seems even more evident that these men have been failing to uphold those principles which lie at the heart of genuine scientific enquiry and debate. Already one respected US climate scientist, Dr Eduardo Zorita, has called for Dr Mann and Dr Jones to be barred from any further participation in the IPCC. Even our own George Monbiot, horrified at finding how he has been betrayed by the supposed experts he has been revering and citing for so long, has called for Dr Jones to step down as head of the CRU.
The former Chancellor Lord (Nigel) Lawson, last week launching his new think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation , rightly called for a proper independent inquiry into the maze of skulduggery revealed by the CRU leaks. But the inquiry mooted on Friday, possibly to be chaired by Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society – itself long a shameless propagandist for the warmist cause – is far from being what Lord Lawson had in mind. Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age.
Christopher Booker's The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the Obsession with 'Climate Change' Turning Out to be the Most Costly Scientific Blunder in History? (Continuum, £16.99) is available from Telegraph Books for £14.99 plus £1.25 p & p.
Early reports seem to suggest that Russia, the USA and China decided behind the scenes to sabotage the process at Copenhagen, and they pulled a coordinated stunt, leaving the pygmies squabbling over the wreckage to save face.
There has been a lot of face saving going on in the warming industry in recent years as their hypotheses have steadily unravelled, leaving them now forced to bluster without even a fig leaf of real evidence.
We could well all be grateful for the deliverance.
It was, perhaps characteristically, not the brightest choice of space time for a cinder panic - midwinter in Copenhagen. However, that American 'Democrat' hasn't been locked up yet, and his understanding of psychology is better. He wants to try again near the equator in summer. Think of the energy outlay on air conditioning.
Hopefully the temperature data will have been re-evaluated by then. The warming industry has already started to collapse. With the likes of Bottler out of the way there may be less political determination in Europe to wreck the west, so the power of the vested interests may have weakened to the point where they can no longer gainsay independent scientists (but I wouldn't count on it).
The next political target should be to dump Kyoto and the carbon credits so we can stop this ridiculous and expensive deployment of near-useless propellers in the sky.
Personally I would still press ahead with the installation of nuclear power stations to free us from energy blackmail orchestrated from overseas.
C. Hooper,
Free(-ish) trade and industrial technology have been the main causes of greater health, better living standards and education, longer life and - inconveniently - a cleaner environment.
There is no suggestion that this 'system' is perfect: it is a product of self-interest, nothing more. Nevertheless, it has worked, and continues to do so.
Curtailment or restriction of the same threatens the poorest of the poor. To base such a policy, world-wide, on an unproven hypothesis is the height of hubris. To say the least.
Perhaps you feel a better solution can be imposed? If so, what? and by whom? And, do you have any evidence, from any human society in history, that such a plan has any chance of success?
Each day brings fresh revelations discrediting the much-vaunted AGW 'consensus'.
It looks more and more as though the followers of the likes of Lindzen and Svensmark will eventually win the day over the grubby anti-west anarchical political movements, including the likes of Bottler and that alleged 'Democrat' from America.
It's high time.
Former US Governor Jesse Ventura exposes a more sinister plot to control the resources causing carbon on his TV series 'Conspiracy'. Carbon trading is a potential $trillion dollar business. It appears one key player is Sir Maurice Strong,going back 20 years.
Others in Britain are mentioned.
Former V.P.Al Gore, while positioned to make a few million in a carbon measurement company appears to be a puppet in this intriguing plot.
Saving the Planet is the cover.
Controlling the worlds resources is end game.
Climate change skeptics remind me of conspiracy theorists who think the americans blew up the world trade centre.
Just a very low opinion of their fellow man, and their motivations.
Russian data 'massaged' as well
Reported in the Russian press.... (translated here)
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/2744/
Bit of a game chnager.
They have always had very good physicists.
Does the BBC start calling them deniars, what about Dave and Gordon and Boris...
Climategate scandal will not go away, because the BBC will not report it
Q.The white cliffs of dover and half of the peak district - where did they come from?
A.Marine deposits
Q.Were we around then?
A.No
Q.Where do the Sandstone rocks in the UK come from (those lovely red rocks?)
A.Deposited during times of deserts
Q.Where we around then?
A.No
Q.Is man arrogant in thinking he can halt forces of nature
A.Yes
Barry Woods:
Thanks for the link.
"...and possibly the beginning of a prolonged period of weak activity equating to a Maunder Minimum"
That's the cunning plan! We'll all be in our skimpies awaiting plus-six-degree warming, having ditched the oil-fired CH in favour of trendy photo-voltaic, and Bing! Little Ice Age.
Dashed clever. Turnip salad anyone?
Good article.
The Earth was able to withstood human for millions of years.
So what's changing now? Why the urgency? How much will Al Gore get for this?
Very fishy...
Those clever physicists and astrophysicists at Cern, are now predicting global cooling due to solar (relative lack of) over the next 10-20 years.
Apparently russian physicists are laying bets with european ones on global cooling!
Even more interesting, is this find from the HM treasury website (dated 2003).
Maybe someone should have told Gordon Brown: (and Dave & Nick & Boris)
Conclusion:
"A number of solar cycle prediction models are forecasting weak solar cycles 24 and 25 equating to a Dalton Minimum, and possibly the beginning of a prolonged period
of weak activity equating to a Maunder Minimum. In the former case, a temperature decline of the order of 1.5°C can be expected based on the temperature response to
solar cycles 5 and 6. A rural US temperature data set shows that recent and current
temperatures remain below the average of the first half of the 20th century."
full link below:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Solar_Cycles_24_and_25_and_Predicted_Climate_Response_22nd_October.pdf
Very dry reading, it would seem that real scientists are just not as good as the IPCC/UN are PR and media spin.
If what they predict is correct, 1.5 plus degrees of cooling, is potentially MUCH worse for us humans, than a bit of warming...
Remember this is ALL natural, you can't tax the Sun (big ball of fusion in the sky, not the newspaper)
Those clever physicists and astrophysicists at Cern, are now predicting global cooling due to solar (relative lack of) over the next 10-20 years.
Apparently russian physicists are laying bets with european ones on global cooling!
Even more interesting, is this find from the HM treasury website (dated 2003).
Maybe someone should have told Gordon Brown: (and Dave & Nick & Boris)
Conclusion:
"A number of solar cycle prediction models are forecasting weak solar cycles 24 and 25 equating to a Dalton Minimum, and possibly the beginning of a prolonged period
of weak activity equating to a Maunder Minimum. In the former case, a temperature decline of the order of 1.5°C can be expected based on the temperature response to
solar cycles 5 and 6. A rural US temperature data set shows that recent and current
temperatures remain below the average of the first half of the 20th century."
full link below:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Solar_Cycles_24_and_25_and_Predicted_Climate_Response_22nd_October.pdf
Very dry reading, it would seem that real scientists are just not as good as the IPCC/UN are PR and media spin.
If what they predict is correct, 1.5 plus degrees of cooling, is potentially MUCH worse for us humans, than a bit of warming...
Remember this is ALL natural, you can't tax the Sun (big ball of fusion in the sky, not the newspaper)
D Lostracco
Of course, I should have said the carbon in CO2 comes from food...
David Welch:
What you are describing applies to any well-run organisation, whether a business, academic institution, aircraft carrier.
All of them move according to the view held by a few at the top of the command chain. And there is a degree of mutual supervision at all levels in human society.
It is very doubtful that a colleague with other research interests, as you put it, would be able to actually delve into the detail of dozens of papers, in spheres beyond their expertise, without seriously compromising their ability to work in their own field.
A tight ship is just that: dissent is sometimes - often? - counter-productive, it can risk the whole mission, unless carefully managed.
This is not conspiracy theory: it's management practice.
None of the above infers that the directors of any given enterprise are correct or well-informed in their decisions: that analysis occurs after impacting real-world events have played out.
We shall see, in fact.
D Lostracco:
Tree: do you mind if I don't? I live on the second floor in an urban environment. And tax, yes. The CO2 comes from your food, in turn from agriculture. Air miles! Nitrogen! Diesel!
Thanks for the oasis. Any chance of some deck-chairs?
Are these the same scientists that said on midnight dec 31st 1999 all the clocks would stop working? I think Y2k was a bigger scam.
WOW! Quite the raging debate ... I love it! But, I have only one question ... "After the Copenhagen Summit, am I going to start getting taxed for exhaling all that nasty CO2 into the atmosphere as I breath?". Oh, and one comment too, "Let's all plant a tree."
OK, just a simple pause in the fury, an oasis so to speak. Please continue with the debate :P
CGECT - Climate Gate Energy Conspiracy Theory = CGECT-N Clean Global Energy Consumption Transition- Nuclear
I don’t want to be a conspiracy theorist, but what IF:
"Closed Doors - One decade of Planning" Set-up:
Root Cause: ENERGY
Finding a catalyst: CO2
Offer a Preempt strategy ( Smoke Screen) for a larger ‘Primary’ goal not publicized (Energy & Control). Includes agreement and sharing of Global Energy Sector players.
Inception: last Decade
Stimulus: Economics Developed Nations -Industry/Gov –Global Energy Initiative.
Offer: Define Issues (CO2) and come to a consensus.
Hidden agenda: Global Control of Energy, with a consortium that can grant or restrict access, e.g. concerns ‘WMD’.
Method of achieving ‘Primary Goal’: Offer Green solutions and a credit based system that will fail (Strategic). Reasons: Cost, impact timeline, lack of agreements (Global), economical space (Commercial, Private, Gov Land), Splintered solutions. Provide fear mongering and dire need.
Method of diversion to ensure Primary Goal: Ensure no consensus, press release negative Media, ensure skepticism and mistrust in Initiative.
The switch:
Announce Strategic Plan & Flash solution (Primary goal): Offer solution -Development of Nuclear power stations in Global Key Locations under a coalition pact and control from Developed Nations i.e. US, GB, France, Germany etc. Locations probability within all UN mission areas or at least core locations.
Proposal: Clean and cost effective Energy Globally, controls, agreements (Buy-in, offerings, subsidies, profit share), jobs, lower cost, Long term gains of Nuclear Power in relation to CO2 reduction, scalability, abundance of power source and life span.
Types of expected comparisons, but with added spin: http://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-1/comffnp.html . Final Argument: ‘we have it already, it’s not new’ and through consensus implement. Since this is the PLAN.
Outcome: Public outcry, resistance, normalization, acceptance = Nuclear Society.
Indicators (Too many to list, but you get the point):
UK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4216302.stm
US: http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/2009/11/17.html
Japan: http://www.etsap.org/newslet/issue5/page5.html
Africa: http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=86&art_id=qw1164229925545B252
Australia: http://www.energytoday.com.au/news/
Etc, Etc, Etc…..
Note: “Notably, in making today’s announcement, EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt emphasizes that, ‘The air is getting cleaner.’ It is not happenstance that the nation’s strides in cleaning the air over the past 20 years coincide with dozens of nuclear power plants coming on-line and producing huge amounts of emission-free electricity.
Robin L:
Several points in reply to your thoughtful message @ 8.55.
I used the word "mainstream" because I know some of the departments and people, and this reflects the latter`s lead positions in these departments.
With regard to scientists with other research interests signing the petition, you may be do not realise how work goes on within departments. When there are seminars colleagues with other research interests will be scrutinising the work of those temporarily receiving some climate-change money, and will judge and know the qualities of these colleagues.
As for discipline, evidence, knowledge and rigour, I obviously can only vouch for the people I have seen in action myself.
You may have different personal knowledge, but I would be very surprised to hear that "dodgy" eccentrics within departments, or self-qualified researchers have been signing.
Http://www.climateg8.com
David Welch,
Thank you for your reply.
I was seeking to illustrate, with the link to the Oregon petition, that scientists - in this case more than thirty thousand of them - do in fact hold differing views, in all disciplines. Certainly, over time, such views may change, which underscores the point. Attempting to present an unproven hypothesis - the component of AGW referred to as positive feedback, with it's implication of tipping points and runaway temperatures - as 'settled' science is not science at all, but rather a crude, albeit successful, attempt at opinion-forming. Many would say scare-mongering.
I do not share your confidence that the 1700 - why use the word 'mainstream'? - scientists' recent statement is much more than PR. As indeed is the Oregon Petition.
You seem to agree, as you put forward the view that any scientific discipline - "GM crops to insect plagues to seabirds" - qualifies an individual to pronounce faith in a wholly different sphere of research.
None of this means much either way. When a hypothesis is put forward, the burden of proof rests with the proposer(s), not with the dissenters. That AGW will lead to catastrophe remains an unproven hypothesis: it carries no weight. There is no proof that this is so.
And - thinking hard - I find it difficult to characterise the climate research currently held as the gold standard by the IPCC, inter alia, as "based on discipline, evidence, knowledge and rigour". One does not have to go to the leaked CRU files to discover this.
Perhaps you have some scientific qualification yourself?
Larry @ 9.52:
Why do you disbelieve our Victorian and Edwardian forbears?
To claim that they invented descriptions of snow in order to fake the evidence for a debate a hundred years after their time, and for which they would have no inkling, is simply idiotic.
If you argue our temperature records are wrong, such as the CET, having been made cooler by the CRU, then so also must be wrong all the things that honourable people wrote in that era.
And the photos they took.
No wonder we call you people deniers.
Robin L @ 8.04 am:
The Oregon Petition to which you refer was mainly run in 1999-2000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
So despite some updating in 2007 and the wording being made less extreme, it is hard to know how many of the original signers would still hold their opinion of ten years ago.
As to the UK petition with 1700 mainstream scientists signing, you ought to realise that most of these scientists risk loss of research money by giving support to climate researchers.
Most belong to university science departments and conduct their research on lots of others subjects from GM crops to insect plagues to seabirds.
Within departments there will be a few who receive some climate-research funding, and it is to show their belief in the integrity of these colleagues that the others have signed.
And to defend a system based on discipline, evidence, knowledge and rigour, against those who simply manufacture evidence, distort e-mails and believe what fits their pious wishes.
Do some thinking, please.
David Welch:
Look here.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
And ask yourself, how easy is it to have a career in climatology - or obtain funding for research - if an individual is questioning the orthodoxy you clearly espouse. In the Met Office, for example, where nearly one eighth of the respondents work.
Do some digging, please.
Does anybody still believe in AGW? If so, have they seen the reconstructions of Siberia, New Zealand and Australia, and the greenland ice core temperature graphs. Those 'scientists' have a lot of explaining to do. The cheek of saying it was the hottest decade, when the evidence seems to point to them having made the past cooler. Are our scientific institutions committing suicide to give them one last chance at Copenhagen?
The unbelievable gall of that Orwellian Met. office in garnering support ( twisting arms according to some scientists who feel they have to sign in order to keep the income coming in) for something as spurious as MMGW, especially given the revelations of lying, manipulation and plain bullying, is beyond belief.It's like reading a novel about a madhouse - incredible.
The IPCC and Copenhagen have revealed to all, just how far removed from reality they are, and to have the obtuse persistence to continue with the MMGW myth, after the obvious cheating and thuggery exposed by the UEA emails, is beyond belief!
They are utterly "in it" for themselves, as is the Orwellian Met office, judging by the latest revelations about their "signed"support.
There was a very impressive statement signed by 1700 UK scientists published in the Times Online yesterday.
""Statement from the UK science community
We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method. The science of climate change draws on fundamental research from an increasing number of disciplines, many of which are represented here. As professional scientists, from students to senior professors, we uphold the findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes that "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal" and that "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations"".
These folk are the chief researchers and mainstays of 100 plus UK universities and institutions.
And took the trouble to sign up over just a few days because of the unscrupulous attack on expertise, knowledge and science organised by some anti-Warmists and fanned by journalists such as Chris Booker.
There have been many claims that significant numbers of scientists do not believe in AGW, but I doubt if that lobby could muster 1% of these names from UK science.
This has been said ever since they started this load of tosh
It IS a BIG CON and it is this govenment that are making money out of it
And other compaines like the energy ones
All this CO2 cobblers is just that COBBLERS
How can the SO called EXPERTS explain the climate Change some thousand of years ago
When there was NO man and there were ONLY animals
WHAT CAUSED IT THEN????
All the gas they had from the vegetation they ate
And all the Climate Changes that this world has had since
Wake UP people
DO NOT be conned
Tim on December 10, 2009 at 09:18 PM
I think the main issue is the complete inability of the warming industry to cite any real evidence that MMGW due to CO2 is more than insignificant, or of increased greenhouse warming in the atmosphere, that doesn't either assume correlation without first establishing causation, or rely on computer models, which aren't evidence.
So this has nothing to do with if global warming is natural or is caused by human production of CO2, it has to do with how fast, if at all, the earth is warming?
On May 19, 2009, at 9:03 AM, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
Have gotten replies - the're both happy to write supporting letters, but both are too busy to take it on this year. One suggested waiting till next year. Malcolm is supporting one other person this year. I'd be
happy to do it next year, so I can pace it over a longer period. Malcom also said that Singer had an AGU Fellowship!!
Apart from my meetings I have skeptics on my back - still, can't seem to get rid of them.
Also the new UK climate scenarios are giving govt ministers the jitters as they don't want to appear stupid when they introduce them (late June?)
Talking of skeptics - the attached was rejected by IJC.
He put it up onsomething xarchiv. Easy to see why it was rejected. Parts appear quite
well written, but they always go too far. Obviously have no idea how to write a paper.
Cheers
Phil
My emphasis.
Comments about an email (and the email) found on an internet forum...
'Barbeque' Summer (said the Met Office) - someone getting nervous about that prediction..
--------------------------------
As I mentioned on the other thread, it would seem quite likely (in IPCC speak that's probably at least 60% certainty) that the Met office's ill fated barbeque summer prediction was wrapped up in this. Possibly. Allegedly.
Their models/theories don't explain why their may be cooling going on, even in the short term.
Yet they continue to believe in AGW, in the long term??
Bizarre behaviour for a 'scientists'
"From: Phil Jones [mailto.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: 05 January 2009 16:18
To: Johns, Tim; Folland, Chris
Cc: Smith, Doug; Johns, Tim
Subject: Re: FW: Temperatures in 2009
Tim, Chris,
I hope you're not right about the lack of warming lasting
till about 2020. I'd rather hoped to see the earlier Met Officepress release with Doug's paper that said something like -
half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on record, 1998!
Still a way to go before 2014.
I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying where's the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.
Chris - I presume the Met Office continually monitor the weather forecasts.Maybe because I'm in my 50s, but the language used in the forecasts seems a bit over the top re the cold. Where I've been for the last 20
days (in Norfolk)it doesn't seem to have been as cold as the forecasts. I've just submitted a paper on the UHI for London - it is 1.6
deg C for the LWC. It comes out to 2.6 deg C for night-time minimums. The BBC forecasts has
the countryside 5-6 deg C cooler than city centres on recent nights.The paper shows the UHI hasn't got any worse since 1901 (based on St James Park and Rothamsted).
Cheers
Phil
> >
> >
Go on Phil, Go outside, try using a THERMOMETER to measure the temperature in Norfolk yourself? ;)
Next year in Australia we are due for a Climate Change election . Prime Minister Kevin Rudd , Labor ,Climate Change fanatic versus Tony Abbott , Liberal , a Climate Change heretic/non believer .Tony will win , Bravo ! Any such choice in the UK election ?
No doubt you have seen on the tv news major stories about the glaciers melting in 30 years in the himilayas:
The BBC now reports that actually that is not correct:
Himalayan glaciers melting deadline 'a mistake'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8387737.stm
But where do they put it in the news?
Good news - Front page.
NO buried away, in the south asia section of the website...
NOT even science and environment..
They ask the locals, and they say, it has melted 0.5 km in the last 100 years..
Forgottening to mention, that the galciers did the same
the previous 100 years, and the previous 100 years..
Perhaps, maybe the planet has been coming out of the little ice age since the 1650's and it has been purely down to Natural climate change.
The BBC are complicit inthe climategate scandal. I cannot believe the BBC's behviour is just incompetance/gullibilty anymore
Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges:
Science, “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate,” July 9, 1971
[i]t is projected that man’s potential to pollute will increase six to eightfold in the next 50 years. If this increased rate of injection of particulate matter in the atmosphere should raise the present global background opacity by a factor of 4, our calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5° K [3.5° C]. Such a large decrease in the average surface temperature of the Earth, sustained over a period of a few years, is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age
I have never for a minute believed in ”man made climate change”. Here is the reason:
200 001 years ago we abandoned fucking around with ugly people, especially big apes, and focused on more beautiful ones. A year later mankind was born.
Since that day maniacs, psycopaths, power hungry demagoges or most usual people scared of thunderstorms started inventing doomsday prophecies trying to invent the future.
Those prophets existed in every one of the 10, 000 or more tribes that was trying to survive in the old days.
Recently there has been forrest death in eastern Europe, a new ice age around the corner, Waco, Hale-bob, 37 russians in a cave and what not. Why not the jihadists 72 virgins. Demagogues promising death and destruction.
Unfortunately most people do not learn much in school and those who do, stop learning after school since they spend the rest of their life standing in audition lines for talent shows in every country in the world. Not long ago a tadjik won "Afghanistan Idol". He is now on tour.
There has been thousands of doomsday prophecies, probably more than a miljon the last 200,000 years. To my knowledge almost every one of these have been lies. The rest, a handful, was just plain wrong. Not a single prediction of the future has been up to date.
So..Why should this ”man made climate change”, the latest, not the last one, of all doomsday prophecies become TRUE???
Stalin had his court scientist – Lysenko.
Internetglobalisation has its – IPCC.
In 1964, physicist Sakharov spoke out against Lysenko in the Generel Assembly:
”He is responsible for the shameful backwardness of Soviet biology and of genetics in particular, for the dissemination of pseudo-scientific views, for adventurism, for the degradation of learning, and for the defamation, firing, arrest, even death, of many genuine scientists.
All I know is that Krakatoa blew upp in 1883, and some day will again.
From ”a tall blond blue-eyed man from Sweden”
I have never for a minute believed in ”man made climate change”.
Here is the reason:
200 001 years ago we abandoned fucking around with ugly people, especially big apes, and focused on more beautiful ones. A year later mankind was born.
Since that day maniacs, psychopaths, power hungry demagoges or most usual people scared of thunderstorms started inventing doomsday prophecies trying to predict the future.
Those prophets existed in every one of the 10,000 or more tribes that was trying to survive in the old days.
Recently there has been forrest death in east Europe, a new ice age around the corner, Waco, Hale-bob, 37 russians in a cave and what not. Why not the jihadists 72 virgins. Demagogues promising death and destruction.
Unfortunately most people do not learn much in school and those who do, stop learning after school since they spend the rest of their lives standing in audition lines for talent shows in every country in the world. Not long ago a tadjik won "Afghanistan Idol". He is now on tour.
There has been thousands of doomsday prophecies, probably more than a miljon the last 200,000 years. To my knowledge almost every one of these have been lies. The rest, a handful, was just plain wrong. Not a single prediction of the future has been up to date.
So..Why should this ”man made climate change”, the latest, not the last one, of all doomsday prophecies become TRUE???
Stalin had his court scientist – Lysenko.
Internetglobalisation has its – IPCC.
In 1964, physicist Sakharov spoke out against Lysenko in the Generel Assembly:
”He is responsible for the shameful backwardness of Soviet biology and of genetics in particular, for the dissemination of pseudo-scientific views, for adventurism, for the degradation of learning, and for the defamation, firing, arrest, even death, of many genuine scientists.
All I know is that Krakatoa blew upp in 1883, and some day will again.
From ”a tall blond blue-eyed man from Sweden”
I note from some of the comments the failure of some Conservatives to expose the AGW scam. At least one senior Tory, Lord Monckton, has edxposed the UN sponsored Copenhagen Summitt for what it is - an attempt to bring about a one-world-government run by the UN and with dictatorship powers. But you don't hear this from the British media. I picked this up through Truths That Transform
http://www.coralridge.org/medialibrary/default.aspx?mediaID=TTT091203
Just over a year ago, I tried contacting the Conservative Party to suggest that there was enough scientific evidence to question the global warming claim. The Conservatives, therefore, ought to look at changing their policy on this. Care for the environment, and fuel economy, makes sense - but for other reasons. But blindly jumping on the AGW bandwagon may cost David cameron the next election, if as some have commented here it turns people to the UKIP. (I think voting UKIP would be a ghastly mistake, since a protest vote serves to keep Brown in power.)
Another source for information, and true science, is www.cfact.org. And a news source which gives independent coverage - banned from Copenhagen because they do not toe the party line - is World Net Daily, www,wnd.com
I am amazed at how people who have just read the following article can then just blindly throw themselves emotionally (without thinking) into the warmist delusion as though they had absorbed nothing. This to me is the real alarm. The world is filled with a majority of such persons!
I am a scientist and have been taught by fellow scientists (Professors of Physics and Chemistry) who can and do show that there is no solid evidence for man made climate change.
On the contrary, having studied environmental chemistry, the majority data shows no change in the rate of warming. From physics the data actually shows cooling over the last 7 years.
Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT actually has now proven recently (with 25 years of data), that runaway warming is impossible. As a temperatures warm, the rate of heat loss rises and conversely, as cooling onsets, the rate of heat loss declines.
Try a search on Lindzen or perhaps Lord Monkton to see the real reason why you are being duped......
Joshua Skye
on December 07, 2009
at 08:17 PM
Your comment gives no indication of your having read CB's book, and I think you should, at least before making any judgement with regard to the present issue. And your tone commands no respect. (Why the "holier-than-thou"? for example. It makes no sense.)
As soon as I read the pretentious opening sentence about Delingpole “coining” the term “climategate” I knew where that article was going. It is amusing that every single wannabe and/or so-called journalist has tacked “gate” onto anything since the Nixon scandal in some vain attempt at initiating their fifteen minutes of muck raking stardom. Face it, it doesn’t take intelligence or wit to stamp “gate” onto anything. Frankly, it’s more like wishful thinking these days… especially since journalism has become nothing but biased rhetoric. Christopher Booker himself is a “gate” of sorts, if indeed it pertains to partisan oratory or scandal making. Call his agenda “sciencegate” (see even I can do it) for his absurdist beliefs that he peddles by way of his profession. Let’s see now… what insane ideas has he peddled? Oh yeah… he claims that white asbestos is as harmless as talcum powder and that second hand smoke doesn’t have any ill effects. He’s also one of those holier-than-thou creationists! Booker likes to cite kooks instead of valid sources for his opinions, one need look no further than his love affair with the work of John Bridle who was convicted years ago of making false statements and claims about his qualifications. Booker’s climate change skepticism and subsequent agenda is utterly biased and right-wing oriented, his association with Heartland Institute (a conservative think-tank) more than proves that. His skewed scientific views (remember this guy peddles the decidedly non-scientific creationism) have been denounced many, many times over.
Darius
on December 07, 2009
at 08:55 AM
"The most eco friendly device on earth isn’t solar powered curling tongs, or methane powered dishwashers - it’s made of rubber and it’s called a condom - it stops two polluters becoming more polluters -
Use it."
I don't wish to be offensive, but doesn't it follow from this that you should wish that the two "polluters" who are your parents should have used a condom to avoid producing the "polluter" which is you?
This really is last chance saloon, people.
The UN is trying to persuade us that it has the ability and know-how to control the world's climate. WTF?
Unsurprisingly, taxation, surveillance and militaristic enforcement figure prominently in their plans. THIS has been their agenda all along.
Warmists and coolists should not allow themselves to be divided and loose focus of the REAL issue. We BOTH want a clean AND free planet for our children to inherit. We are both essentially on the same side.
The REAL issue here is what EXACTLY the UN has planned for us. I'm talking about the Big Brother style intrusions and draconian restrictions on our life and liberty. THAT should be the real debate. THAT will affect us FAR more than any changes in the World's climate. You want to think it wont, but if the nefarious intentions of the UN were fully disclosed to us, the whole warmist/coolist argument would pale into insignificance.
UNITE! Otherwise the turkeys really will be voting for Christmas!
Apparently those in the "developed" (marketed and financially hog-tied) world produce 10 - 50 times the dreaded carbon footprint of those in simpler societies.
OK, if true then we in the decadent west should be doing the most to reduce the impact we have on our planet.
Fine.
I noticed on the news reports that many many young ladies were amongst the crowds of cool "eco warriors" demonstrating, and I have no doubt they are there in the sincere belief that "something" must be done to save the planet.
Now given that we pollute more than third world countries, I would have the greatest respect for any of these women who pledge to do their bit for our tired old world, simply by not breeding more than one polluter each.
I’m sure if they signed that pledge then the rest of us consumers would feel a bit happier about escalating fuel prices, and tariffs for the trendy eco-cool politically fashionable techno garbage that are wind farm, `lectric cars and the like.
For I suspect that the only way to really save the world is to convince people NOT to overpopulate it.
The most eco friendly device on earth isn’t solar powered curling tongs, or methane powered dishwashers - it’s made of rubber and it’s called a condom - it stops two polluters becoming more polluters -
Use it.
The Left-liberal intellectual position is dead. As a fish begins to stink at the head, so everywhere there is this disgusting stink from the most contaminated places, as the core beliefs of NuLabour and the Dems die and rot.
Note also the Church of England, Obamatrons, Nobel "Peace" prize, etc, etc...
anatheistani
on December 05, 2009
at 05:44 PM
"Why most glaciers are melting and receding at a progressively faster rate by the year?"
Indian scientists seem to believe otherwise, in the Himalayas at any rate:
"Study challenges global view on Himalayan glaciers
Bookmark and Share
Aarti Dhar
10 November 2009
Contrary to the view held by global climatologists, a new report of Geological Survey of India has revealed that the Himalayan glaciers are not shrinking as fast as they are believed. It says that while some of the glaciers are retreating, others are advancing such as the Siachen glacier.
New Delhi: India on Monday challenged the internationally accepted view that the Himalayan glaciers were receding due to global warming."
Wonder if Al Gore has been told what having his salad tossed means?
David Welch
on December 05, 2009
at 11:44 AM
"Are you still pretending that data has been lost?
Or just wanting to undermine the credibility of a group of scientists.
There is NO DATA LOST."
David, why do you keep insisting that no data has been lost, in the face of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary?
"Climate change data dumped
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building."
Link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
David Welch
on December 04, 2009
at 10:46 PM
"It is now clear that the so-called scandal of the CRU e-mails is a minor storm in a minor tea-cup."
Nope.
"E-mails hacked from a climate research institute suggest climate change does not have a human cause, according to Saudi Arabia's lead climate negotiator.
Mohammad Al-Sabban told BBC News that the issue will have a "huge impact" on next week's UN climate summit, with countries unwilling to cut emissions."
Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8392611.stm
"A huge impact", David.
I think you'll find that Saudi Arabia is a very influential nation in such affairs.
I've asked before, do you have a vested interest in the veracity or otherwise of the UEA CRU emails, David?
You seem to be in an extraordinary amount of denial.
fishshocker
on December 04, 2009
at 01:21 PM
"It is not possible to account for the observed changes in CO2 concentration and temperature without a role for human activity, and no convincing alternative explanation exists."
There is no valid statistical link between temperature and CO2 concentration throughout the twentieth Century.
Thus, your hypothesis is falsified.
atheistani
on December 03, 2009
at 07:00 PM
"C.B. and his followers in this column wishing for an Ice-age, will hype-up any mistake scientists make in order to prove their point."
Don't be silly.
Absloutely no-one wants an ice age.
No-one denies the climate is changing.
The debate is as to whether mankind is responsible for it, and whether, based on the current - apparently questionable at best - evidence for this, the massive changes in practically every aspect of our lifestyle are likely to be remotely justified.
Personally, I believe that a degree or three increase in global temperature is likely to provide far more advantages than disadvantages. Consider the known deterioration that took place in living standards during the Little Ice Age and taking the temperature during the LIA as a baseline, it is very clear that the increase in temperature since has been an unmitigated improvement.
So what reason is there to imagine that a similar increase from the current temperature would be likely to be problematic? Has anyone, anywhere, any evidence whatsoever to demonstrate that the current temperature is absolutely optimal?
Does anyone really believe that we, as a species, are somehow all of a sudden incapable of adapting to change at the century level?
Unfortunately, I believe that the recent warming trend was not anthropogenically driven but was cyclical in nature, and that we will shortly revert to the sort of temperatures current in the 1950s.
TO: Vaughan the question is not so much whether it is getting warmer, whether the seasons are shifting or other climate changes; the question it the cause of the affects. The seemingly clear point is that Man is not responsible; accept, Man- (Mann?), the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit et. al. are responsible for bad scientific method. The really serious outcome of this misbehavior is that scientists overall will now be doubted. This is why it is important that the scientific community insist on a full scale investigation, and if it is found that there has been misbehavior, punish those responsible appropriately.
Vaughan on December 06, 2009 at 12:12 PM
What exactly is your point? Is this supposed to be real evidence that there is more than insignificant AGW or greenhouse effect occurring?
Please expound.
Whatever people might say in e-mails, nothing changes the fact that 150 years ago John Tyndall filled a tube in his lab with CO2 and tried to meaure the heat passing through the tube from the hot object at one end to the sensor at the other. He couldn't. The sensor registered almost nothing. The heat was blocked off. Nothing got through. The needle stayed almost where it was.
The same happened when he put water vapour in.
The same with coal gas (that is, mostly methane).
But when, before that, he had had just air in the tube (in other words, 99 per cent nitrogen and oxygen) the heat had got through with no problem.
So where had it gone to? Why didn't it get through this time? What had happened to it?
It can't just have vanished.
So where did it go? And what did it do to what was in the tube?
Have a read of this disgracefully worded article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/dec/06/break-in-targets-climate-scientist
The Climategate scandal only affirms my belief that the hysteria over man-made climate change begun by Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" is itself a man-made hoax.
Why were these scientists trying to suppress information that disproved their pet theories? Did they not want to lose their government and NGO funds? Their false status as pure academics above bias or agenda? Their adulations by the intelligentsia?
I used to believe in the global warming theory, but the emotional hysteria and intolerance among its proponents, as well as the very serious accusations of falsifying data long before Climategate, have caused me to abandon it altogether. Nothing is worse than a leader of academia who willingly betrays the ideals of the scientific method for selfish gain, with the peoples of the world paying the consequences.
Richard
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Have David Welch and Slioch got together? Has anyone ever seen both of them at the same time?
Sir Alastair Muir Russell is the head man 'investigating' the Climategate Scandal.
He's a member of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. The RSE is openly 100pc behind the man made global warming scam and donates sizeable sums of money to universities every year to promote this lie.
So what does he mean when he says '..no links to either the university or the climate science community...'????
Are they all liars? Holy Moly, what does it take to get a clean, honest and impartial investigation?
On a brighter note, Al Gore was drummed out of one of his book signings by a group called 'We Are Change'. He was filmed running away - with members of the group chanting 'What's the carbon footprint of your multi-million dollar mansion Al?'
I fear people do not yet realize what a 40pc reduction in carbon emissions will mean. An 80pc reduction would shut down everything.
Those of us Stateside knew Gore was a idiot, now, the rest of you know, you are being used..
Global warming is a hoax, its only mission is to make those who do nothing for a living rich, you liberals have been played for the fools you are.
All this has been pretty funny to watch tbh, does anyone know wherre Gore is?
Maybe he's in a undisclosed location like Chaney, oh have the mighty fallen
The truth is like cream, it rises to the top
Tym.
David Welch at 06:47 PM
The trees in question tend to be chosen from very rural areas, the Yamal series being near the Russian Arctic and anyway the main correction was to increase the temp. whereas UHI would, in principle, have done that anyway.
I did note that the graph was for summer months only and took that onboard WRT to what have I expressed as my particular current curiosity re. other temperature statement . For its warts it did lead me to ponder a number of points...
I have however now downloaded the CET dataset from http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat and graphed the annual averages for those two periods. With a 12 year rolling average, depending on ones mental ruler, most of the century is somewhat of the same drift, the 20c diverges upwards for the last decade or so. The 18c at this point shows a start of a decline have not not looked into the next decade...
Strikes me though that there is also little sign of those fine summers of 1975/76 :)
Dave Cochrane @ 6.47 pm:
If the graphs that had a different basis for before and after 1961 were the only ones for judging long-term trend, you would have a valid point.
But there`s lots of temperature recorded by instruments for before 1961, and nobody has lost this data and the graphs from it.
Which is why we are also debating the CET, a very useful data set though it covers only a tenth of the UK.
You can baffle most with BS, but when the real issue is trust, the fact that 1657 was cooler/warmer is pretty irrelevant. At best the data is wonky, at worst fraudulent. For something that has the potential of costing billions of ££'s, to simply ignore the leaked data shows arrogance and ignorance that only our current government could. Browns remarks are disgraceful towards those of us that feel the science is far from settled.
There is a great term that comes from computing - GIGO garbage in garbage out. Even if the temps were right the programmes according to the leaked files are just that. Garbage. True believers are the new religion, following blindly and ridiculing those who refuse to accept the junkscience.
Mick J @ 5.44 pm:
I understand what you are saying about changing just certain years or groups of years in the long-run temperature graph with these calculated "corrections",and agree it could be dangerous and pervert the interpretation of the raw data.
Nevertheless there are changes in the circumstances of the recording which should be considered, like the spread of urbanity 1850s onward, cf. the C17 and C18 [Coolists are likely to want that correction].
I have also looked at the longer CET graph which you referenced @ 4.08 pm, thanks.
The way the two lines have been overlain for the C18 and C20 makes it seem there is negligible difference.
Then I thought, well this has missed out the last decade from 2000. And I also see it is the summer CET, i.e June, July and August.
I reckon other seasons would show a greater difference.
So here we are again, with a graph being chosen that one side feels will best make the case with most folk in the street, folk who just won`t spot that they`re being given only a selected quarter of the data set.
But interesting to see how poor a summer it was in 1725, so much out of line with the first half of the C18.
What a difference this could make if we were working on 25-year means, and 1725 was shunted from 2nd span to 1st span by choosing either 1700 or 1701 as start date.
Which is why we need good statistical and modelling advice.
@ David Welch: You and your fellow Warmists are the deniers now. Look, the fact that recent observed temps are warmer than the models show for the last 50 years is proof that the models are WRONG - in other words, the data from the previous years (from tree ring proxies) have been artificially COOLED to make the recent observed temps appear abnormally warm. In the graphs, they mixed proxy data from before 1961 with OBSERVED temps from after 1961. Hey presto, you get a hockey stick upward-turn from 1961, the exact point that the two seperate data sources are welded together. Come on, surely even you understand the problem with this? I'm not inventing this, the emails and fudged code in which this was done are all over the net, look for yourself!
Why do journalists depict CO2 gases using photographs of water vapour from power station cooling towers?
Do they know the difference between smoke stack and cooling tower emissions?
David Welch on December 05, 2009 at 04:35 PM
"Surely working on the proxy C20 data to make it fit in models to the C20 actual instrumental record is the right thing to do. "
If such a correction is needed to adjust how representative the proxy is for a short period then should it not be applied to the rest of the series as well as it suggests that the proxy representation in general is being understated in some manner. Indeed there are many such corrections applied across the extent of proxies some of which to correct for overlapping sources.
But the nature of the fudge is actually saying much more, it is a skewing of the data in specific years with specific factors to adjust a distinct period on an annual basis that has been known for a long time as the "divergence", all that is new here is the availability of these emails and code in confirmation of what other scientists have been saying on this matter for several years.
Yes, the image is from a contrarian site as this is where such representation of data was to be found when I searched. Although I should perhaps have looked at Philip Edens site, he has done an amount of work WRT the CET. The commentary was for me neither here nor there, as I mentioned for me the significance of this graph is to recollect other presentations and wonder why the distinct differences in trend. Hence I mention the work of Prof. Lamb, again for which I needed to quote a contrarian report in order to provide a link to the image as that was the only one I had to hand and has been eradicated from IPCC reports. When then compared with other more public proxy records I wonder the disparity especially in the light of certain statements previously noted so I suspect the science remains unsettled. :)
This is not the first leak from CRU, for example there was one earlier in the year for some raw data that was placed on one of their public FTP servers and there was also a purge of data from their public FTP sites not long after. The difference is that those earlier episodes never made it into the media. Apparently the MET Office also does not have a record of what arrangements it may or may not have with what original sources regarding IPR or any other restrictions that might apply to some of the data.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Met Office/CRU Finds the Mole
by Steve McIntyre on July 28th, 2009
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6644
More news on the Met Office/CRU molehunt.
Late yesterday (Eastern time), I learned that the Met Office/CRU had identified the mole. They are now aware that there has in fact been a breach of security. They have confirmed that I am in fact in possession of CRU temperature data, data so sensitive that, according to the UK Met Office, my being in possession of this data would, “damage the trust that scientists have in those scientists who happen to be employed in the public sector”, interfere with the “effective conduct of international relations”, “hamper the ability to protect and promote United Kingdom interests through international relations” and “seriously affect the relationship between the United Kingdom and other Countries and Institutions.”
Samuel D'Arcangelis, Ph.D.on 29,th at 10:49 PM
Who has 'a full understanding of reaction chemistry, molecular spectroscopy and photochemistry, and reaction kinetics, with enough experience in thermodynamics and physics to speak on any level of authority, and will put his qualifications up against any'... Please let me know...
Why most glaciers are melting and receding at a progressively faster rate by the year? From field data it seems, this has never happened so quickly in the past. Unless of course, the CRU has lost this too.
Anyone?
Barry @ 1.51 pm:
I think you are under a sad misunderstanding about these "original" data on paper tapes that have now been thrown away.
If you had worked with our early computers in the early 1970s you would remember the punched paper tapes that took up an enormous amount of space. Spools that sometimes had to be uncurled along corridors to get right to re-enter the machines, and which were normally stored in massive cardboard cartons.
This sort of data would later be transferred electronically and backed-up into the new better computing systems, making the original paper tapes unnecessary.
So today many quite massive data sets can go onto memory sticks.
I see nothing at all wrong in paper tapes being discarded by CRU.
In all the thousands of messages and webpages about the CRU thefts, I have not seen a single claim that any original set of raw but processed data has been lost.
But as for the very raw data that I was recording 50-odd years back, well I don`t think the Met Office will be storing up all the graphs that came from anenometers changed everyday, and sunshine globes. Besides the tatty stiff-backed notebooks into which we wrote the thermometer readings.
Plenty of room for bias then, which now is quite obviated by automatic recorders.
Mick J @ 2.45 pm:
Surely working on the proxy C20 data to make it fit in models to the C20 actual instrumental record is the right thing to do.
If I say manipulating the proxy C20 data to make it fit the instrumental record, I think you would understand, but 95 % of the religious Coolists here wouldn`t.
And by discarding an attempted manipulation of the proxy data, they would deduce like Barry Woods, John Sarjeant and SJM, that precious raw data had been lost=discarded=destroyed.
I have looked at the web site to which you refer on Central England long-term temperatures.
This is a Coolist site that biases its presentation of the data.
The site shows what "the UK`s notorious Climate Research Unit presents on their website" but the graph given starts in 1850 whereas the CET graph starts in 1660.
Your site claims that the warming from 1690 to 1730 is "normal", so the recent warming from 1960 to 2009 must be normal too.
A complacent attitude.
For those who want to see the long CET run that Gordon Manley built up, simply Google Central England Temperatures.
And the Met Office page gives all the monthly and yearly means back to the C17.
Notice that 10 deg C was reached just once in the C17 and not again till 1730. But now we have exceeded 9.9 deg C in every year since 1996.
And almost certainly will again in 2009.
Apologies, I left off the link for the CET comparative image for 18c and 20c in my post of December 05, 2009 at 02:45 PM
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CET_18-29thcenturies.JPG
Cant make any sense of David Welch's posts
'John Sarjeant claimed that the "raw data has now been destroyed", a statement he can only have produced because he has been persuaded by articles like Chris Booker`s, and which statement he will be bound to regret, especially if he is taken to court.'
CRU have admitted that data was discarded.
" "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""
Now this I really do disagree with. Most people in this controversy accept that the raw data being recorded by our Met. Offices is accurate. "
This code is used to process some of the Proxy data used by the team to prove that current warming is higher than any time since... The manipulation of the Proxy data for the 20c to make it fit the instrument record is what is being examined here. So it is not making a judgement about the MET Office current record.
Talking of which here is the Central England Temperature for 18c and 20c, this obviously begs the question, why is the 18c warm when in a LIA. It is all explained when using the first IPCC millennium temperature record when in the 18c there is a warm period and then cooling again as is graphed here. http://i45.tinypic.com/iwq8a1.jpg and the first IPCC report graph in this article at El Reg. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/
I hate to say this but, " One World Government " ruled by evil forces is a certainty in the prophesized course of events. Fight it we will for the cause is just.
David Welch:
Are you this David Welch?
David Welch: Sport and Media Management
If you are (what science, It qualifications do you have?)
David Welch Management has three main objectives: to promote a select group of top-class journalists, columnists and broadcasters across a wide range of media and sport related activities; to support and maximise similar opportunities for former, and current, sportsmen and women; and to provide individuals, organisations, companies and sponsors with informed consultancy advice.
During 15 award-winning years as Sports Editor of the Daily Telegraph, David Welch acquired the experience and connections necessary to establish such a ground-breaking consultancy, and this has resulted in a record number of high-profile projects and best-selling books for DWM clients in less than four-years of operating.
http://www.davidwelchmanagement.com/
Or are you just a member of the public with the same name?
I`ve just been listening to Any Questions and am shocked that John Sarjeant, a long-standing BBC reporter, can come out with outright lies on the stolen e-mails.
And that this programme has been repeated without the Sarjeant lies being qualified.
John Sarjeant claimed that the "raw data has now been destroyed", a statement he can only have produced because he has been persuaded by articles like Chris Booker`s, and which statement he will be bound to regret, especially if he is taken to court.
lost/thrown away/deleted?
Times article said:
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.
In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”
The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.
Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.
Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years.
He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.
Dave, Edinburgh @ 6.28 am:
I`ve had a look at the reference you give that details a claim on data manipulation by CRU.
I don`t pretend to follow all the steps spelt out on the modelling, and possibly there are errors on this blog.
Like in paragraph 8 shouldn`t the reference to line 4 of the code be to line 8.
But what surprises me is the graph.
This appears to show that the actual warming since c. 1970 has been greater than in the model line produced by Mann et al 1999.
Not the sort of graph that Coolists want to believe in!!
I paste from your ref.:
""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""
Now this I really do disagree with. Most people in this controversy accept that the raw data being recorded by our Met. Offices is accurate.
And even Lord Lawson`s hostile think-tank use it.
Mr Brown, you are reported to come from a religious background. Such beliefs as you may have are your own private affair, but when a comparable standpoint threatens to impoverish and in the long term ruin those who you are paid to represent you have gone beyond your mandate. Your job is to look after the wellbeing of the citizens of the UK and nothing else.
You have just made a pronouncement* on Climate Change. We will forgive you for getting the subject for debate wrong and we will charitably assume that ‘the quote was taken out of context’. We are sure you either meant to say Anthropogenic Climate Change or Anthropogenic Global Warming.
*http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6729833/Gordon-Brown-climate-change-sceptics-are-flat-earthers.html
A man who is incapable of weighing up the evidence for himself and who insists on adhering uncritically to advice which has been roundly and rightly discredited is indeed no better than a flat-earther. That is why such faithful fervour is likened to religion. Are you at all familiar with the history of Galileo? If you are, you would no doubt condemn his persecutors. Can you not see the parallels in you own action today?
To express it in your own terms: It is devoutly to be hoped that you will justly suffer for your heretical beliefs. In a manager it is simply incompetence: The higher the manager, the greater the incompetence. Those you look to for advice are incompetent, but you are compounding the incompetence without limit.
If a pharmaceutical company, big oil, nuclear industry LOST the data, would the bbc and you be saying, move along please, don't look for yourself, TRUST us.
Barry Woods, what`s your point in saying this?
Are you still pretending that data has been lost?
Or just wanting to undermine the credibility of a group of scientists.
There is NO DATA LOST.
What was said, rashly, was a threat to hide the data so it wouldn`t have to be given free to an FoI requester.
Would you working for an engineering company and spending a year building a complex model, hand all the details free to a rival because they sent an FoI request.
If you were experienced in science research, you would know that intending collaborators don`t send FoI requests.
Over 150,000 words have been produced here, and it's an excellent representation of the controversy. I think it should be produced in book form.
Have any eminent Oxbridge scientists, competent in the climatology field, put forward their evidence/support for man-made activities contributing to climate change? If not why not? Would their views not be deemed to coincide with the party line and carry the "wrong" message? It appears that we are only being fed opinion and data from the UEA, with all due respect not exactly the UK's leading University, who have been saddled with this task in return for...?
Climate experts?? Simply greedy individuals with their snouts in the trough of government grants, pedaling bad science based on manipulated facts and statistics.
The scary thing is that so many people believe this rubbish, which is little more than a giant, tax raising, con.
Gordon Brown: climate-change sceptics are 'flat-earthers'
People who doubt that human activity contributes to global warming are “flat-earthers” and “anti-science”, Gordon Brown has said.
Milliband says: 'Climate Sabatoeurs'
Tribal. offensive politics.
MY children live on the same planet, I am NOT a 'climate sabatoeur'
I have a BSC in APPLIED Chemistry.
I have a MSC in Information Sytems Engineering (Comp Science/Cybernetics)
So don't tell me about CO2, and how to develop code for a complex computer modelling system
What these 'climate science' researchers did was just embarrasing..
What is YOUR degree, Milliband, BROWN, all those snearing bbc (english grad) journalists)
Because of the Internet, hundreds of thousand of people have seen (HArry_Read_me.txt,) 4000 + emails, AND THAT CODE, that show cast iron eveidence of the undermining of the scientific process, let alone the criminal activities FOI, of course losing the data!!!!
If a pharmaceutical company, big oil, nuclear industry LOST the data, would the bbc and you be saying, move along please, don't loo for yourself, TRUST us.
DO NOT patronise every single real scientist in the world..
The IPPC is washing over this, no proplems here says their chief (a Railway Engineer)
Saudi Arabia have said CLimate gate will have a 'huge impact' on Copenhagen. the whistleblowing leak/data shows that AGW is NOT happening...
Is Gordon going to call the Saudi's lead negotiator at Copengahen a 'flat earther'
The chinese, russians, Indians, etc, will of course been analysing this copious amounts of information,and are keeping counsel, letting the entire western world have enough rope, to destroy western credibility forever..
The russians, chinese have very good scientists, in many varied fields. The russians KNOW a 20-30 year dip in tempertyre is coming courtesy of solar cycles.
Will anybody listen to any of the above, of course not,
the science is settled. So anyone that dare ask a question, is belittled, abused...
DENIAR, Flat Earther, "sceptic", 'climate Sabatoeur, labelled naive, irresponsible, and much worse..
My INFANTS school children came home last week, saying the polar bears are dying because of humans.
I said lots of scientits are still discussing this, I THINK they are wrong, the polar bears are going to be OK.. In ten years time will they be turning me in for te criminal offence of being a deniar..
I am VERY angry.
If it's not getting warmer, why are spring bulbs coming up in the garden this morning, 5th December?
Is that how Telegraph readers remember Decembers past?
Dave, Edinburgh on December 04, 2009 at 10:46 PM
Give your namesake time - he is only a politician.
The AGW propaganda machine had been grinding on for about 20 years. Dominated by the left and a whole gamut of groups with different anti-west agendas, it has convinced a lot of voters that we are in peril, and that only worshipping at the altar of the great green god will save us.
The AGW message has been dinned into the heads of schoolchildren for the best part of a generation, creating slightly brainwashed voters who really believe the guff. It will take a while to turn enough of them round to count.
Politicians in democracies will follow the voters. Once Cameron perceives a change in voters' perceptions he will change his stance, like any politician. Unfortunately, voters have no qualms about making retrospective judgements. So if Cameron supports Copenhagen and the voters come to realise how asinine that was, he will be punished in due course regardless of the political climate when the treaty was signed. But he may not see it that way right now. He probably has scientific plants (advisors) like Bottler's who are feeding him the thermomaniac line.
Another factor is evinced by the recent treatment of David Davis, for example, who received the standard thermomaniac personal attack from the Environment Secretary for daring to stick his head above the parapet (for which he receives full marks).
For the Leader of the Opposition to indulge in such slanging matches over the despatch box at this point, without a certainity of an immediate political victory, would be pointless.
Having said that, I too have felt compelled to rebuke his office for not reading emails of mine and sending me replies addressing a different subject. I eventually told them that if they expected me to trudge through the rain delivering pamphlets during an election campaign then I would need better treatment. Needless to say, I am no longer a member of the Conservative party
David Welch
on December 04, 2009
at 10:46 PM
You say,
"No one has pointed to any batch or span of raw data that has been manipulated to tell a different story."
NOT SO,
check out this item :
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-the-smoking-code/
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation have run a piece featuring one of their commentators.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgIEQqLokL8&feature=player_embedded
Not going to see this on the BBC any time soon. :)
David Welch is trotted out when the left feel threatened. As we can see he only has one tactic, and he never has anything to contribute except a polemical smoke screen.
Some have wondered out loud whether he is a paid agent.
It is unusual to see him trampling around a climate change page. Things must be bad.
He is best ignored, especially if he is trying to get your attention.
David Welch
on December 04, 2009
at 02:34 PM
"Could some Tory supporters here explain why David Cameron is keeping very quiet on the stolen e-mails."
As a former Conservative member, I still receive e-mails from Cameron's outfit, and I can say without any doubt that Cameron is up to his neck in the EU and Climate Change scam.
Headline from his "Blue blog" effort of the 27th November:
"In nine days time, representatives from 192 countries will meet in Copenhagen for the UN Conference on climate change. This summit is of historic importance. It is an opportunity for the world to take bold action to deal with the real danger of climate change."
Of the 278 Conservative members who bothered to reply to this drivel, almost ALL were AGAINST his green agendas, with many giving notice that they will vote UKIP at the elections.
One member asked for a debate so I posted data re. the logarithmic properties of CO2 and an explanation of how "unprecedented" temperature rises were being exaggerated, but when I provided this with links to the source, my post was censored.
"The science is settled", therefore one is not allowed to debate.
Whether CO2 is or is not the cause of warming, it is everyones right to question the "science", an impossible task if the moderators are activists in the eco-mental movement.
So sod the Torys, I, like many former Conservatives will vote UKIP come the elections, in the hope that they will carry out their promise to get us out of this mess, Europe and the man-made climate change scam.
That said, the censoring of all data that does not fit the scam is to be expected, as the massive green propaganda machine swings into damage limitation mode to whitewash the CRU scandal.
Legions of "science" and "environment" reporters will do everything in their power to "explain" the many emails between the perpetrators of the "global warming" fraud and to repeat the lies that underwrite the passage of laws that will bring extreme hardship and death to millions of the world's poorest people.
So buisness as usual for Copenhagen, the CRU scandal NEVER HAPPENED.
It is now clear that the so-called scandal of the CRU e-mails is a minor storm in a minor tea-cup.
No one has shown that any data has been destroyed for a country, recording station or span of years.
No one has pointed to any batch or span of raw data that has been manipulated to tell a different story.
Instead the conspirators who planned the theft of the e-mails, and timed it deliberately to try to wreck the Copenhagen Conference, should now be the focus of investigation.
And for us in the UK, being that there is a chance that the Tories will be in power next May, we must consider what the Tory policy on climate change will actually be.
Being that no Tory has answered my question of what is David Cameron going to do about the sharp divisions between Messrs Davis and Yeo on global warming, it seems that party members are embarrassed by the obvious divisions and lack of direction just when greatly needed.
Maybe David Cameron is away travelling out of the country for a good reason.
David Welch on December 04, 2009 at 04:49 PM
"say these are fair comments and the studies are what scientists should be doing, trying to fill the global gaps.
Notice the "significant uncertainties" and the comment that Northern Hemisphere reconstructions should be looked at more carefully.
Unlike the dogmatic certainty of Phillip Stott."
It is, I suspect, somewhat politic to always include caveats especially in the current climate. :)
Equally the dogmatic statements of the IPCC et al that say that the MWP was a small warming and very localised thus current temperatures must be exceptional sit in the same frame and therefore should be presented and considered similarly.
There are already NH studies suggesting a warmer period than MBH98 and the Briffa 2006 papers, Loehle 2007, Haung and Pollack 1997 papers for example. The later is based upon 6144 boreholes worldwide and indicate an average temperature of .5c higher than the chosen mean value.
http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/skeptics-handbook-ii/web-pics/boreholes-huang-1997.gif
Also if a graph is reconstructed using all the proxies that Mann claimed were used a similar graph for the NH results http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/skeptics-handbook-ii/web-pics/synthesis-report-summary-tar-hockey-stick-web.gif MM 2003, 2005 and the Wegman report.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/hockey-stick-cps-revisited-part-1/ makes for an interesting read into the processes involved and why some have concerns about aspects of the proxy research and thus its role in the debate er. consensus.
3rd
So no answer to Catweazle from the Welch character. Welch by name, welch by nature...
Not surprising really. He clearly is not a scientist and has very little knowledge on the subject. Just another empty barrel making a lot of noise.
I used to live under communist regimes!! I can not believe such an institution IPCC in such free countries like Great Britain, Europes, and USA can be accepted??? And leaders who come to Copenhague, what are they thinking?? the trillions policy based on an invalid model tampered with secret cooked data??
And here is one name from USA: OBAMA
David Welch on December 04, 2009 at 04:49 PM
"say these are fair comments and the studies are what scientists should be doing, trying to fill the global gaps.
Notice the "significant uncertainties" and the comment that Northern Hemisphere reconstructions should be looked at more carefully.
Unlike the dogmatic certainty of Phillip Stott."
It is, I suspect, somewhat politic to always include caveats especially in the current climate. :)
Equally the dogmatic statements of the IPCC et al that say that the MWP was a small warming and very localised thus current temperatures must be exceptional sit in the same frame and therefore should be presented and considered similarly.
There are already NH studies suggesting a warmer period than MBH98 and the Briffa 2006 papers, Loehle 2007, Haung and Pollack 1997 papers for example. The later is based upon 6144 boreholes worldwide and indicate an average temperature of .5c higher than the chosen mean value.
http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/skeptics-handbook-ii/web-pics/boreholes-huang-1997.gif
Also if a graph is reconstructed using all the proxies that Mann claimed were used a similar graph for the NH results http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/skeptics-handbook-ii/web-pics/synthesis-report-summary-tar-hockey-stick-web.gif MM 2003, 2005 and the Wegman report.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/hockey-stick-cps-revisited-part-1/ makes for an interesting read into the processes involved and why some have concerns about aspects of the proxy research and thus its role in the debate.
fishshocker on December 04, 2009 at 03:56 PM
That was an above average response for a warmist. At least the ad hominem parts were relatively polite. In addition, you accept that there is no real evidence that AGW is causing more than an insignificant amount of AGW.
It is up to those who insist that we must reduce our consumption of fossil fuels to justify their assertions, because it means rolling back the industrial revolution, which would radically change our lifestyles. That is a logical outcome - absurd perhaps if carried out - but logical, despite the false position you tried to put me in.
To me the causes of CC are not a matter of belief. That has religious connotations that are out of place here. I don't care what theories are being advanced. What matters is what can be proved. Bonnet bees are not a sufficient excuse to mess whole civilisations around. Nor is not being able to think of anything else.
To expand on the implications of implementing the warmists demands: if we are seriously considering reducing overall human energy consumption - and all this messing about with funny light bulbs and the like suggests that we are - then we need to step back and consider the implications.
Windmills and other renewable sources do not contain nearly enough energy that we can extract to plug the gap. They are expensive and they also need conventional power stations to back them up - for example when the wind is too strong or too weak. We have known since the 1950s that the only alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear fission.
Western civilisation is predicated on a lot of energy, which it is why demonising combustion products is so attractive to our enemies. Burning fossil fuels in combination with steam power, along with artful inventions to apply the new energy, transformed the west, turning it into an industrial society, from which springs our economic power. The extra energy also supports a huge increase in the population world wide, which is directly dependent on that energy for its existence.
Nuclear fission can be used by advanced nations to generate electricity only in places where electric power is required that can be transmitted from remote locations by cables, and in places where the local populace will not blow up the reactors, steal the cables for the metal they contain, or use the technology as a cover to make nuclear weapons. In addition, it presents other problems - for example, the fuel is harder to come by, it produces low volumes of by-products that are toxic and radioactive for a very long time, it is not portable in the way that diesel generators are, and it doesn't offer a way to smelt iron, for example, as far as I know.
In reality, reducing the production of man-made greenhouse gasses means reducing the energy supply from fossil fuels, from which it follows that overall energy production will reduce. The logic suggests that people in those places where nuclear power stations are not practicable are to be hung out to dry, as far as I can see. I wonder if they will meekly accept such a fate?
Reducing energy consumption implies that the size of the world-wide human population that we can support must also reduce, since it is dependent on that energy and the clever ways we apply it. An analogy would be forcing agriculture back to wooden ploughs, thus reducing the food supply, and therefore the number of people that can be fed. If so, then when we talk about carbon saving measures (ie reducing overall energy consumption) I would be most reassured to know that we are not also talking about sentencing people and their children to death in their millions or perhaps even billions. Something similar was tried in Germany just after the second world war, but abandoned when the dire implications were realised.
Are we really prepared to allow huge numbers of people to die, and without real evidence of significant AGW?
sorry for the typing earliar, cold anger, gets ahead of my fingers...
Please remind Milliband,' independent 'thinking' is NOT yet a crime. Yet in ten years time will my children be informing on me for being a 'deniar'.
It uis shameful deniar is being used in this context.
Shameful that the bbc says "sceptic" in quotes on their website.. What are those quote for, what is their intention..
I have seen the code, emails, datamanipulation, criminal behaviour, for myslef...
Has Milliband...? What qualifications has he to tell me what to think?
Bsc Applied Chemistry, MSc Information Systems Enineering vs ?
It is over two weeks now since the data, code and email whistleblowing from esat anglia..
The Telegraph and very many other journalists, must have see the entire contents, it is freely available, even catalogued on the internet..
Many many programmers have said the code is useless/fixed/fraudulent for its purpose..
The datasets have been manipulated, fixed, forced to to fit the model..
And of course lost.
criminal activity regarding foi requests...
None of the contents ahev bee denied, in fact it has been authenticated beyond a doubt...
YET no paper, tc cahnnel, hads serioulsy reported it...
IF the Telegraph, doe not dedicate the WHOLE of the Sunday edition to the first GLOBAL scandal, involving the entire world economy...
Then their truly is no hope for any of us, we might as well sign up to be good 'unquestiooing ' frightened' by the media 'peasant' indoctrinated to believe whatever the proposed global manangement of the planet wish..
AGW is a total fraud, on every level, the cover up is truly horrifying.
Mick J @ 4.08 pm:
Thanks for the reference to the studies of Oppo et al. on the Indo-Pacific Ocean.
I paste:
Temperature reconstructions suggest that the Northern Hemisphere may have been slightly cooler (by about 0.5 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval Warm Period' (~AD 800-1300) than during the late-20th century. However, these temperature reconstructions are based on, in large part, data compiled from high latitude or high altitude terrestrial proxy records, such as tree rings and ice cores, from the Northern Hemisphere (NH). Little pre-historical temperature data from tropical regions like the IPWP has been incorporated into these analyses, and the global extent of warm temperatures during this interval is unclear. As a result, conclusions regarding past global temperatures still have some uncertainties.
Oppo comments, “Although there are significant uncertainties with our own reconstruction, our work raises the idea that perhaps even the Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstructions need to be looked at more closely.”
I say these are fair comments and the studies are what scientists should be doing, trying to fill the global gaps.
Notice the "significant uncertainties" and the comment that Northern Hemisphere reconstructions should be looked at more carefully.
Unlike the dogmatic certainty of Phillip Stott.
Those East Anglia chaps should be sent to be retrained, as food critics...
Experts in Cooking the books.
David Welch on December 04, 2009 at 10:28 AM
"PS has long been notorious for manipulating the temperature trend line and claiming there was a Medieval Warm Period globally that was warmer than today. "
He is not alone in recognising the extent and scale of the MWP. For easy access to some of the many papers try this site here. http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html
One of the emails from P Jones mentions the plan to change perceived history. "We will be rewriting people's perceived wisdom about the course of temperature change over the past millennium,"
This article at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/ explains how this was done, the work of esteemed Prof. Lamb removed after the first IPCC report to be replaced by something that suits the AGW message.
The coolists and deniers here are those that hide the Earths past history. From the Woods Hole study:
~~~~~~~~
“The more interesting and potentially controversial result is that our data indicate surface water temperatures during a part of the Medieval Warm Period that are similar to today’s,” says Oppo. NH temperature reconstructions also suggest that temperatures warmed during this time period between A.D. 1000 and A.D. 1250, but they were not as warm as modern temperatures. Oppo emphasizes, “Our results for this time period are really in stark contrast to the Northern Hemisphere reconstructions.”
~~~~~~~~
They are also raising questions re. the NH temps as they are now in stark contrast to research findings from every other area of the world.
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=282&cid=59106&ct=162
4th
Scott,
Any alternative explanation (clouds, solar activity, whatever) would also fall foul of your test - you would need to model the climate using your proposed driver in order to test whether it was a plausible theory.
Yes, correlation is not causation, but the same is true for any proposed driver.
Existing models include water vapour, cloud cover etc., but these are not sufficient to explain the observed trends.
Why do you feel able to state that "Other influences, that you refuse to discuss, are driving nearly all of the CC", when according to your "correlation is not causation" rule it would be impossible to test this assertion.
Seems to me that you are prepared to believe any theory that does not involve human activity, but do not subject these theories to the same standards of testing that you require for AGW.
P.S. Your assertion that action to avoid climate change would result in the destruction of human civilisation is clearly utterly absurd.
fishshocker on December 04, 2009 at 01:21 PM
"It is not possible to account for the observed changes in CO2 concentration and temperature without a role for human activity, and no convincing alternative explanation exists."
Well, at least you have come clean. The fact that you don't know what drives CC is irrelevant. You are not alone. I assume you are insisting that AGW is more than insignificant or there would have been no point to your posting.
Your case is an argumentum ad ignorantium fallacy where it is claimed it must be true because you can't think of anything else. This is equivalent to blaming witches for crop failures in the middle ages because they couldn't think of any other reason.
You reject all other possible influences on CC and then are forced to use modelling to create a fiction full of exaggerations in a black box to make up for it, which is not evidence. All it does is make the observations fit the theory, rather than the other way round. I am afraid the smoke and mirrors no longer work. We have seen through it.
Besides which, too many people of stature regard the models as unreliable, given their failure to predict the real world temperatures, and the hotspot that they say should be in the troposphere. They were a device to save face after it was discovered that CO2 just wasn't important in the CC stakes, and it was too politically embarrassing to admit it. Besides, who was going to vote for honesty, oblivion and the dole when lucrative alternatives existed?
We know that there has been a warming since the end of the Little Ice Age, with oscillations every 60 years or so.
Correlation is not causation and temperature data, finagled or not, says nothing about its cause, either way.
The alarmists have claimed the last two half cycles of the temperature oscillation: first on the down slope when they tried to frighten us with an ice age, then on the upswing, when they generated a scare about uncontrolled global warming. That alone is enough to dismiss them as hysterics.
In this context it doesn't matter where the new CO2 came from, and claims that most of it is man made are hardly earth-shattering news. But it just doesn't matter.
The uptake by CO2 is logarithmic, and most of the available heat had already been absorbed by the existing CO2 before the industrial revolution. Changes in concentration from the likes of us therefore have a very small effect. Moreover, CO2 is unimportant as a 'greenhouse' gas. Water vapour is the one that counts.
There is no real evidence that AGW is more than insignificant, or of an increased greenhouse warming. If it existed we would have heard it trumpeted from the rooftops long since, and there would have been no need for further discussion. You would have produced it here. Instead we hear a deafening silence, especially about the failure, despite the most desperate efforts to finesse it, to find evidence of an increase in the greenhouse effect as predicted by the models.
Other influences, that you refuse to discuss, are driving nearly all of the CC.
Consequently the AGW hypothesis is not a reason either to do anything, or to reverse anything. Moreover, if we go into reverse, then we will spend trillions reversing a negligible impact on the climate, dismantle our civilisation, and sentence millions or perhaps billions of people to poverty and death. Very clever. Especially without real evidence to back it up.
How come the American media seem to be the only ones who are starting to debate this? The UK mainstream media is a joke!
Could some Tory supporters here explain why David Cameron is keeping very quiet on the stolen e-mails.
If this is really the greatest scientific scandal of our generation, then he ought to have commented by now on what to do next. He hasn`t.
We need a comment urgently as to whether the Tory leadership back the statement of Tim Yeo, former Tory environment minister and now chair of the Commons Environmental Audit Committee, that we are seeing "the dying gasps of the deniers" and in "five years` time no one will argue about there being a man-made contribution to climate change".
So which is it, David Cameron, Yeo or Davis?
It is about time these fraudsters wher found out. If global warming is not caused by solar activity. How can the shrinking of the polar ice caps on Mars be explaind? Is there power stations and cars on Mars?
I think these scientist are a grave danger to developing country's and the worlds poor people.If they had their way they would cap how much we could breeth! Good job to the scientist that are exposing these self interested scientists, if you could call them scientists!
"...there is actual evidence for climate change, it is not a belief system."
As "Scott, East Anglia" pointed out, I should have said "there is actual evidence that climate change is caused by human activity".
Carbon isotope data shows that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is from fossil fuels, and therefore is not caused by warming from another source. It is not occurring as part of a natural cycle.
This is a clearly different situation from the pre-industrial situation in which temperature changes preceded changes in CO2.
There is unequivocal data to show that CO2 levels have increased.
It is not possible to account for the observed changes in CO2 concentration and temperature without a role for human activity, and no convincing alternative explanation exists.
All proposed alternatives such as solar activity, clouds etc. have been refuted, or the authors refuse to divulge their methods.
Let me be quite frank, without an identical "control" planet to manipulate in a different way it will never be possible to absolutely prove what the drivers of climate change are. In this situation the only alternative is to carry out modelling experiments, validated against past conditions and use them to predict the future. This is an absolutely sound and reasonable way of proceeding.
The evidence from such studies is unambiguous, including human activity is necessary to make the models fit the observed patterns. This is not a trick or fiddle, but a scientifically rigorous approach.
We scientists have clearly done a bad job on explaining this stuff, and this is very depressing. If I am rude to climate change deniers it is out of frustration that we are walking into an avoidable disaster.
This is the most lucid synopsis of the scandel I have read to date: thank you.
One point which the "climate cabal" never addresses is: the earth is several billion years old, so what is the statistical significance of a mere thousand years of data, fudged or not? Now, if the same scientists believed that the world was created in 4004 BC, at 9:28 on a Tuesday morning in October....
Rex Murphy gives a superb summary of this situation here
http://www.youtube.com/v/lgIEQqLokL8&rel=1&fs=1&showsearch=0&hd=0
Compare Rex Murphy with yesterday's item on the BBC's "Newsnight" program.
Watch, and wonder who are the deniers now?
Re David Welch's comment of 11:20 pm Dec 3rd.
In Jones' own words:
"If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.”
Short of watching the man shred documents, what clearer evidence could there be of his attitude to scientific enquiry?
How naive can be the Coolists in Lord Lawson`s GWPF think-tank.
They put out a logo whose temperature trend line was not only wrong, but manipulated the data by choosing 2001 as the start year rather than 2000.
So the direction of the trend is biased.
This way of choosing data to model or display would bring outrage and cries of scandal if done by any warmists.
Yes, the GWPF logo has now been corrected, but what this shows is that Lord Lawson`s crew are so sold on their religion that they couldn`t spot an obvious error.
The potent BBC-Guardian axis are most to blame. As temperatures have cooled in the last decade they have relentlessly hammered the population's guilt in the same time- in what can only be described as a torture. I hope the next decade is better and sees their demise.
When are the mainstream news television networks going to start telling the general public the truth this is a outrage the silence is deafening the reason being the wealthy people that are running this show climate change own the media and the governments of the world have covered all their bases thank god for the internet
There have been persistent claims that the BBC are ignoring the Coolist case, yet again a fair slice of Radio 4`s Today programme was given over to a debate that featured Phillip Stott this morning.
PS has long been notorious for manipulating the temperature trend line and claiming there was a Medieval Warm Period globally that was warmer than today.
To do this temperature proxies have to be used since people weren`t recording temperatures on thermometers then.
So we have reconstructions from tree rings and speculation from where vines are supposed to have been grown in countries that have recorded history sufficiently far back.
And then great leaps of faith that if we can find some indicators for Northern Europe then the rest of the world has to show the same trend.
But Phillip Stott doesn`t even get his facts right for the UK, with quite absurd claims that vines were grown "all over England".
When an arch manipulator of data is given kid-glove treatment by the BBC, it is really time for protests to be made about its bias.
British civil servants now sceptical about export whitewash. - Rueterrs
The senior British civil servant in charge of the Ministry of Towing the Line (MOTL), Sir Smedley Smithe Sinjon has now publicly stated that the earlier expectations about the ability of the UK to export its massive whitewash stockpiles to help offset its deficit were now unrealistic. The MOTL had previously calculated that the millions of tons of whitewash being produced annually by his and other departments in exchange for knighthoods and peerages would be surplus to UK requirements and could be exported to Mediterranean countries who have been making use of whitewash as a building treatment for hundreds of years. Sir Sinjohn has now concluded that the investigations into the CRU data and emails by his department, the UN IPCC investigations into the same together with the ongoing Iraq enquiry would now consume more whitewash stocks than available and the UK would need to become a net importer of whitewash.
This is devastating news for the UK government who were relying on the whitewash exports to get them out of the current financial problems prior to the elections next year. Lord Manglesson the minister of everything nobody else can do, or wants to do, has indicated that the UK government is examining the situation very seriously.
The full details can be found here: http//:www.ifyoufollowthislinkyouareaplonker.co.uk
News from America
Updated December 03, 2009
Al Gore Cancels Climate Lecture in Copenhagen
Former Vice President Gore cancels lecture, citing unforeseen changes in his schedule.
Will someone explain to the bbc what:
"rats deserting the sinking ship means"
Please join the petition at http://www.globalizacja.org/?page_id=177
The Open Letter to Attendees COP15 United Nations Climate Change Conference Copenhagen 2009
Free Trade, No Climate Taxes!
The theory of human-made global warming, no matter if you support it or not, is nothing more than a scientific hypothesis.
On behalf of this hypothesis, the richest UE countries, supported by ecologists, are going to introduce global regulations, concerning elimination of industrial carbon dioxide emissions.
We call attendees of UN Climate Change in Copenhagen not to introduce imprudent decisions. Their consequences could be more destructive than the greenhouse effect.
Such consequences for developing countries are: long-term recession, businesses bankruptcy and unemployment and for the poorest countries: high food prices due to an increase of energy costs and bigger bio-fuels crops at the expense of edible crops.
The increase of food prices, as we have observed for few years, means more deaths due to illness and starvation. This is the fact, not just the hypothesis.
Additional humanitarian aid, as a compensation for climate change, changes nothing. As in the case of international aid nothing has changed in poorest people’s lives for the last several dozen years.
That is why we call COP15 UN Conference Attendees, to open markets to free trade with poorest nations of Africa and Asia. This is the best way to guarantee the poorest people development and prosperity.
Dr. Tomasz Teluk, President Globalization Institute
Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski, President Ecologists for Nuclear Energy
M.A., Eng. Jan Michal Malek, President Polish-American Foundation for Economic Development (PAFERE), Member of Mont Pèlerin Society
Krystian Dąbek, Vice President and Spokesperson, KoLiber Association
Medeni Sungur, Vice Chair, 3H Movement
Peter Gonda, economist, Conservative Institute of M.R. Stefanik
Radovan Kazda, environmental policy analyst, Conservative Institute of M.R.
Stefanik
Rachel Kania, Social Outreach Manager, Young Americans for Liberty
Doc dr inż. Andrzej Strupczewski, vice-President Ecologists for Nuclear Energy - SEREN
Dr Tomasz Sommer, Editor and Managing Director "The Times in Now!" weekly
Dr Marcin Masny, columnist
Arkadiusz Bińczyk, eneterpreneur
Dr Jerzy Polaczek, editor "Chemistry Industry Magazine”
Jerzy Majchrzak, president Polish Chamber of Chemistry Industry
Dr Tim Evans, president Libertarian Alliance
Hubert Jongen, enterpreneur
Derek Bernard, enterpreneur
Jerzy Samborski, president, European Union for Small and Medium Enterprises and Mid-Class Unicorn
Prof. Adam Wielomski, Polish Academy
You have to pity the bbc now:
Do they think they can spin the world's governments aswell.
The Saudi's LEAD climate negotiator at Copenhagen.
"It appears from the details of the scandal that there is no relationship whatsoever between human activities and climate change," he told BBC News.
"Climate is changing for thousands of years, but for natural and not human-induced reasons.
"So, whatever the international community does to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will have no effect on the climate's natural variability."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8392611.stm
Climate e-mail hack 'will impact on Copenhagen summit'
By Richard Black
It'a all out of context they say, move along please you deniar.
"OH **** THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm
hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform
data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found."
Let's hope the removing of the wool from our eyes does not stop here. The lie of evolution has been so deeply woven into the fabric of society, most don't dare question it. There is no proof! Check out Ben Stein's Documentary "Expelled" for more on the intellectual dishonesty that exists in academia today.
Let's hope the removing of the wool from our eyes does not stop here. The lie of evolution has been so deeply woven into the fabric of society, most don't dare question it. There is no proof! Check out Ben Stein's Documentary "Expelled" for more on the intellectual dishonesty that exists in academia today.
To Mr Runner on December 03, 2009 at 09:28 PM.
As a physicist you may be able to tell us something about how the climate models work. You mention temperature data and it is easy to understand that it would be necessary to estimate the sensitivity of results to different temperature inputs, which presumably they have done. Wouldn’t you have to increment every item of data separately, one at a time? That would involve a large number of repeat runs. Is temperature sufficient to get calculations started? Would that be surface temperature alone or throughout the thickness of the atmosphere too?
You mention that there are different kinds of chaotic system. Well, the real atmosphere and the model might be chaotic in different ways mightn’t they? They might not be comparable.
I would imagine that the main source of uncertainty in the computations might be the model itself rather than its numerical behaviour.
Those people are lowlife criminals, and should end up in prison. But it's rather naive to think that bullying and results fixing goes on in climatology alone. Most of sciences revolve about some sort of gray establishment too. Crucial decisions are made mainly in total darkness, without any hesitation, remorse, and yes -- grin of ethics. Editors and scientists in the west are hired and fired at will by these eminences in totally non-transparent ways; see the bubble-fusion scientist case. And no, you should not expect to see Nobel laureats amongst those gray eminences. I am talking high-level influentials such as Al Gore and Prince Charles. First comes geopolitical interest, then the iron fist, and only in the end do come scientific facts, of course should any such thing survive after the actions by the above morons in boiler suits. Look at the Einstein's relativity: one hundred years on, and this pure and simple case of plagiarism has no gram of evidence, yet it remains the holy grail of our time. Somehow...
Warmists are missing the point. The IPCC and UN have absolutely no intention of solving any alleged climate problem. They have far too much to gain out of inflating it as much as possible i.e huge tax revenues, centralisation of power, curtailing democracy, interfering with the educational and social agenda on a global scale, control, control, control.
Why wouldn't they? Power corrupts!
Now they have to get our focus away from the dodgy climate science ASAP. How do they do this? Well, notice how they first called it 'global warming'? - a direct claim, easy to criticise and repudiate. Now it's the more vague 'climate change'- who could possibly argue with such a bland statement? Now, with equally deft sleight of hand, it's becoming 'energy security'. At last! No mention of 'climate' or 'warming,' but the agenda is still exactly the same.
Exxon Mobil (the 6th richest company in the world) has already started pushing 'energy security' in it's advertising. No doubt other big guns are falling into line at this critical time. Are we not supposed to notice this shift in terminology? It all seems too choreographed and pre-planned to me. There's no denying the elites are masters of PR.
"That sort of comment simply shows you have no idea of how science operates but live in a dream world."
Yes, we know how Science operates (at least Climate Science) and that is why we think it should be changed, because whatever the current system is, it's blatantly corrupt. We're paying for this shower, you know?
Ted Davison @ 8.30 pm 3 Dec:
Thank you for now specifying the CRU e-mail which makes you think that data have been destroyed.
But you implicitly admit that you don`t know that data were destroyed because you don`t name the country or station whose data sets no longer exist.
Obviously this e-mail you cite is different to those I commented on earlier, about lost=missing=not-arrived-at-CRU being twisted to mean lost=destroyed by CRU.
On your e-mail it`s pretty obvious the data set was being kept for climate researchers to work on, but not kept by CRU, so that it couldn`t be sent to the FOI requesters.
Who were sending in multiple requests to deliberately slow down the work of CRU.
So a rash response "I think I will lose the data", but nothing to change the science.
Clive Griffiths:
What is you point about Vikings farming in Greenland?
Are you unaware that Greenland has a considerable farm output today, vastly greater than in Viking times.
Pavo A @ 6.15 pm:
What a stupid comment that peer review has to be in public.
That way the reviewers will not speak their mind about a paper, for fear of upsetting the authors and perhaps as a result not winning their next grant.
That sort of comment simply shows you have no idea of how science operates but live in a dream world.
A world where you would like the ignorant public to have as much say as the dedicated professional with a lifetime of observation and study to help them in decision-making.
Many would think you are a Communist, trying to bring down everyone to the lowest common denominator.
EU President Herman Van Rompuy: “The Climate Conference in Copenhagen is another step forward towards the global management of our planet…”
http://truedsicernment.com/2009/11/23/eu-president-herman-van-rompuy-the-climate-conference-in-copenhagen-is-another-step-forward-towards-the-global-management-of-our-planet%E2%80%A6/
EU President Herman Van Rompuy: “The Climate Conference in Copenhagen is another step forward towards the global management of our planet…”
In light of the Climate Gate scandal this is a little worrying, how did he/they get elected again..
I studied Physics at Bristol Uni, and have studied Chaos theory at Charles University, Prague, at the Meteorological Department.
People in this comment board have said that climate modeling is just a way of getting money. Well, I do not think that putting lots of money into a sophisticated modeling program is money well spent-because the fundamental fact about chaotic systems is that you cant ever model them to great accuracy. HOWEVER, physicists have been studying these systems for years and have been able to find trends and patterns in chaotic behavior-which require a new type of mathematical analysis to uncover. The maths is simple, and anyone can see and understand these trends. So, modeling is about finding probabilities of results. Once you have identified what kind of chaotic system you are dealing with, you can say that it is very likely to, say, increase in temp in two years. Also, you can say if something is unlikely.This is because you can run the model for differing starting conditions (as we cant measure the conditions exactly-its an impossible task) and you can see the resulting temperature for different starting conditions.
If many different starting conditions have a similar result-then it is strong evidence to show the system will behave that way.
The science that shows that the bonds in CO2 in the atmosphere get excited by sunlight, and therefore absorb and emit more heat energy is also the same science that is used to make microwave ovens work-its not a 'made-up science'. More water in the microwave oven means more bonds vibrate so it gets hotter; the same happens with CO2 in atmosphere.
There is no harm in changing our ways to be cleaner. How is clean wrong? Do you leave mess and dirt around your house because it is easier than clearing up?! Reality check; the world is our house!
I completely accept that the world’s climate changes naturally. However, I see the CO2 risk debate as having a parallel with a debate on whether or not a girl should walk through a dark alley by herself. Some people said she’ll probably be OK, and others will warn that it is dangerous. Surely though, the its important to consider the need for that risk being taken. If the girl does not need to walk through that dark alley, then it is safer for her not to. If she can get home (or wherever she needs/wants to go) by some other means-then wouldn’t everyone agree that she should not walk through the alley?
The same with CO2 emissions; are we willing to experiment, with the well being of life on earth potentially being at risk? Or, is it better for businesses change to cleaner methods/products? After all, nobody actually looses out if the world was to operate in a more sustainable fashion. Being the fastest and smartest to change-and spending less time and money on trying to preserve old-fashioned ways, could ensure a business’s competitiveness, and ultimate success, once new regulations come out or the demand for newer, cleaner, smarter, more fashionable, and fun products increases.
If humanity keeps arguing about CO2 being/not being the cause of climate change, then lets stop emitting CO2, and we wont have anything to get angry at each other for anymore!
Perhaps there was/is a scandal in IPPC-I dont know, and would also like an independent inquiry. However, I think using experience in science and using common sense wins over listening to conspiracy theories (perhaps) and people whose business plan’s success relies on climate change not being true.
Apart from numbers and figures, how about the changes we can see? Glaciers are melting on Everest, and sea water levels are rising in Bangladesh. Should we not- having a moral responsibility to all people on this planet- not curb our emissions to make sure that we are not making problems for others?
Also, it’s not just about ‘saving’ the planet. Oil has about 40yrs left. What then?
Ocean acidification caused by CO2 absorption, also has unknown consequences.
I VERY MUCH DESPISE THE WAY THAT SOMEONE SAID THE YOUNG ARE IDIOTIC ENOUGH TO SUPPORT THESE 'GREEN' THEORIES. Perhaps, the young just CARE about the FUTURE!
If everyone in the world saw the natural world as being there for our exploitation-then the fish would have all been 'dynamited out' of the sea, everyone would have loans to have cars, all rivers would be polluted, and ...and eventually we’d all have to fork out loads of money for health care-because we’d all get sick from the hazards produced from pollution.
Nature provides us with FREE services; from cleaning our water and air to providing protection from freak weather events and recreational experiences; we look after ourselves if we look after nature.
Everyone please remember,
Climate, climate change and weather are words to describe what the planet earth has been doing for a very long time.
AGW (man made climate change) is just a theory, programmed into a computer model, that say a very small additional % of CO2(< 0.1 % of Total green house gases), will cause accelerated global warming and massive scare story climate change
Some more quotes for your amusement/horror
"What did TIM do? as I keep asking" he wails.
As he works his way through 'TIMS's labyrinthine' code/suites"
'Harry' (of the notorius Harry_READ_ME.txt file - freely available on the interent - Totally authenticated as real) is trying to make sense of what went before (in the climate models used to produce results) Tim is not around any more.
These guys found Harry and Tim ages ago: (even a picture of Harry) come on you investigative journalists!
http://www.tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=118625&page=13
This a worrying quote from the missing programmer who wrote the 'labyrinthine1 code in the harry_read_me.txt file that harry struggles with... (full article near the bottom of the previous link:
"Although I have yet to see any evidence that climate change is a sign of Christ's imminent return, human pollution is clearly another of the birth pangs of creation, as it eagerly awaits being delivered from the bondage of corruption (Romans. 19-22).
xxx xxxxxxxx works at the Climactic Research Unit, UEA, Norwich, and is a member of South Park Evangelical Church.
It is a bit worrying from a dispassionate scientific perspective.
Some more scary quotes:
THIS is in the GUARDIAN, comments section:
Is it any wonder that many people think climate change is a left wing conspiracy when the proponents of the AGW theory make statements such as these:
"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." - Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
"Unless we announce disasters no one will listen." - Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC
"We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy." - Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world." - Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment
"The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe." - emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?" - Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme
"A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation." - Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies
"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are." - Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund
"Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control." - Professor Maurice King
Someone who saw this coming:
“What is concisely referred to as global warming, is a fatal mistake of the present time.”
Václav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic
"Environmentalism is a way of introducing new forms of statism, new forms of masterminding human society from above.”
Václav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic, Cato Institute
Also:
"Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment.
My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice."
Václav Klaus President of the Czech Republic, interview with "Hospodáøské Noviny"
Be scared
"Brant @ 11.26 pm gives a wise review of the e-mails, and how Coolists are deliberately changing the meaning of words like trick. "
-----
Once again in the name of time and simplicity I'm going to put aside the fact that there's plenty more in there to worry about than the emails which use the word "trick" and focus just on them.
And my question is pretty much the same as the last time... if the referenced "trick" was so harmless and meaningless, why did Mann explicitly deny using it in 2004?
Re David Welsh's comment of 12:17 3rd Dec.:
"Perhaps you take the CRU saying on day 1 that an item is lost (= missing) in a data set they were sent, into meaning they deliberately lost it (= destroyed). And ignore that the column of data was found on day 2, then used."
No. What I'm referring to is:
Phil Jones to Michael Mann on Feb. 3, 2005:
“The two MMs [McKitrick and McIntyre, the latter the dogged retired Ontarian who runs the Climate Audit website] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.”
And, indeed, the CRU subsequently announced that they had “inadvertently deleted” the requested data.
For an in-depth analysis of the evidence for and against I would strongly recommend the book 'Chill' by Peter Taylor. The supression of counter arguements has been going on for years. Never been so warm? The Vikings used to farm Greenland!
"I must congratulate the warmists on their persistence. They keep being knocked down but always bounce back like those little round-bottomed men in the bottom of bird cages."
I love that statement, made by an IPCC expert reviewer in reply to nit-picking nonsense instead of reasoned debate.
Warmists say there is evidence for man-made global warming, yet they are unable to cite any.
I also note that ALL who post here who see through the scam are 100% in favour of proper husbandry of the planet, and not one as far as I can see has ever denied Climate Change.
No doubt contributors worldwide will have observed the Ad Hominem attacks on Christopher Booker and others who do not support the theory of AGW, and will note that such behaviour only serves to highlight that the only course of action left to the "believers" is to try to stop debate through intimidation and bullying tactics, showing the weakness of their cause. Otherwise, believers would not feel threatened, they would simply point to the evidence.
(As a perfect example of the mindset of the eco-mentalist, read the post by John S on December 01, 2009 at 08:55 AM).
For the first time anywhere in a major western democracy, a mainstream party is ready to face an election on "climate change" and face down the bullies.
The Australian Liberal Party, (Do not confuse with the British Liberal outfit), have elected a new leader, held a secret ballot and voted 55 / 29 to defer the Emissions Trading Legislation.
and at least one British MEP is prepared to speak for the British public, see You Tube, "The Climategate Scandal (Part 3")
But sadly, only a deafening silence from the Westminster Mafia, Brown, Cameron, Clegg et al, and although Britain is no longer a Sovereign Nation, (Welcome to the UK Branch of the EUSR), all the scams and political incompetence must be remembered come election time. That is if we still have a vote.
They say history repeats itself, The Blair/Bush double act took us to war with a WMD scam, now the Obama/Brown combo want to take the people to war against the F****** ATMOSPHERE, FFS.
To proceed with this lunacy is insane, and with the premise that as the warmists are so sure that they are right, then they will have nothing to fear from a proper open Judicial Public Enquiry into the whole man-made warming farce.
Surely, rather than call each other names or try to arrange a fight in the car park, warmists should join with coolists to demand that Parliament defers consideration of further co-operation in Global agreements and institutes a Judicial Public enquiry into the evidence for and against the alleged dangerous human influence on climate to resolve the issue once and for all.
Unless of course, they wish to "Hide the Decline" in their support.
As a so called "coolist" I have no fear of an enquiry, so how about it "warmists"?
Mr Broon, I would like to inform you that I request, in the strongest possible terms, a rebate on my various "climate change" taxes. I will be sending you a full invoice shortly. Be prepared for a hefty request both from myself and others.
Yours,
AW8K
P.S. Any idea where Al Gore is? I hear he has done a runner? On second thoughts maybe we should
leave him to our American cousins. I am sure they would like a nice cosy chat with him?
C.B. and his followers in this column wishing for an Ice-age, will hype-up any mistake scientists make in order to prove their point.
Conspiracy or not, it makes not an iota of difference to their 'doctored figures' that still showed an overall rise in temperature of our planet.
It seems Ice-Man is trying his best with type-key to undermine the Mermaid talks, which at least has the welfare of our world at heart.
So much work has gone into planning this Copenhagen conference we shouldn't let a little thing like fake data disrupt the good leaders plan for a global tax.
Don't reexamine the data, Don't delay a decision, don't change course because if the Bay of Pigs taught us anything, a consensus ALWAYS makes the best decisions possible.
Plus, a decision must be made right now because...?
I am no scientist but I do know a bit about history and the events of weather that has effected mankind. The way I look at this is climate is cyclic (we all know that simple fact as we learnt this in primary school). It is also ruled by the sun and moon. Simple 101 climate knowledge. It is not possible for man to a direct influence on the climate the way these IPCC folks are predicting.
So this is great news. So lets drop it and get on with other pressing issues like pollution of our waterways. You might be saying this guy has gone of track. Yes. We are a bunch dirty two legged dumb creatures who just go around throwing crap in our rivers and oceans. Water is our life force and we need to preserve it NOW. Images of this massive floating Island of Plastic in the North Pacific has ingrained into my visual bank. Not acceptable that after all these years of the hype of climate change has put aside a more pressing issues.
Get real humans we have the ability and intelligence to sort this out.
Catweazle @ 11.39 am again tries to bully me by saying that I shouldn`t be on this thread, not having read physics at university and being expert in it.
Well if Catweazle hasn`t yet realised that 99% of the folk on this thread aren`t physics graduates, I can only wonder at his powers of observation and memory.
But then he can`t even remember for 8 hours, talking of the retreat of glaciers in one message, then denying ever saying anything about glaciers.
As for the view that this scandal only concerns the identification of what human activities are causing global warming, rather than the issue of whether cooling is now occurring, we need only classify the contributions here.
For everyone like Scott, East Anglia, who accepts that warming is occurring though stalled since 1998, but that the main issue is the extent of human contribution to these trends, there are probably ten here who are certain that the world is cooling.
Shock news: some data don't fit in with the trend of the consensus. This is a facet of measuring anything. Noise goes in both directions- it doesn't stop the trend being true.
IF scientists at CRU have deliberately hidden data (which I am far from being convinced is the case) this is wrong. It doesn't mean that climate change is not real, and it doesn't mean that it isn't caused by humanity.
Newsflash- smoking reduces the risk of Parkinson's disease. Does that mean smoking is good for you? It's not going to make me take it up. The little fact of lung cancer kind of balances things against smoking for me. If you can't consider the information we have as a whole then perhaps you shouldn't be looking at it in the first place.
I notice Mr Booker has previously claimed that darwinism doesn't explain how we come to be on this planet. Having proved himself incapable of understanding the arguments involved on our origins he has IMHO disqualified himself from any sensible contribution to this current debate.
The telegraph should be ashamed of itself for printing such arrant nonsense. Having got to this page online and by accident I am convinced to give the paper a miss in the future. See you in hell.
I am not sure about MMGW, but this is outrageous behaviour from so-called scientists. The big problem I have with their claims that CO2 is the driver, when it makes up around 0.038% of our atmosphere, risen from 0.028% in pre-industrial times. We can't even measure that effect on heat retention, so how on earth can they make the link? The climate is changing, but it always has. If the aim was to get out of a carbon-economy, why did they not say that in the first place?
David Welch
on November 28, 2009
at 08:43 PM
Still inhabiting Cloud-Cuckoo Land I see.
Simply naming a persuit 'academic' or 'science' does not automatically grant it the attributes of honesty and truth.
Your suggestion that Climategate has parrallels with the 1930's and German poser, is simply tripe, hogwash !
Or are you suggesting that the Nazis were not "real" either ?
I'm one of those old-fashioned types who believes that science only remains honest and true when constantly subjected to Peer-Review in public, and by that I exclude "Crony-Review" as has been the norm with 'Climategate' .
When you find yourself in a deep hole - David Welch - stop digging and start 'ramping ' !
This short extract from an article by Dr Lindzen’s in the last couple of days draws attention to the complete lack of empirical evidence supporting the AGW theory. Dr Lindzen is probably one of the most experienced and respected scientists in climate field.
Dr Richard Lindzen - P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Professor Lindzen explains that the global averaged temperature anomaly, or GATA, a measurement used to determine temperature differentials, has shown insignificant warming since the middle of the 19th century. He points out the 1.5 degree Fahrenheit increase since about 1850 is better understood in light of the fact that the Earth experienced a "little ice age" from the 15th until the 19th centuries. Accompanying the warming trend was, of course, the industrial era, which Lindzen acknowledges increased greenhouse gas emissions. However, he also states that anthropogenic (human-caused) emissions make up such a small percentage of gases regulating the greenhouse effect, that humans could at most affect temperatures by tenths of a degree.
Lindzen also makes the case that in the past 20 years, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has had no success in its attempts to prove that humans are to blame for global warming. In fact, the only thing IPCC researchers have conclusively proven is that their climate models are faulty since even they have to admit the models do not account for naturally occurring variability and therefore cannot explain the lack of warming during the past decade.
It concludes:
Lindzen says such deceitful reporting, and resulting threats of imminent eco-catastrophy, amount to an even greater scandal than Climategate. True climate science involves multiple factors completely independent of human activity that influence normal variations in nature such as "open water in summer over the North Pole, droughts, floods, hurricanes, sea-level variations, etc." Researchers who conceive these occurrences as dreadful omens and blame human activity for them are taking "a gigantic step backward in the science of climate."
It will not be possible to withhold taxes, as these will be levied on consumption, so the cost to every individual in the UK of CO2 emission controls (windmills, CO2 sequestration, solar panels etc., will be enormous and unavoidable!
This a worrying quote from the missing programmer who wrote the 'labyrinthine1 code in the harry_read_me.txt file that harry struggles with...
"Although I have yet to see any evidence that climate change is a sign of Christ's imminent return, human pollution is clearly another of the birth pangs of creation, as it eagerly awaits being delivered from the bondage of corruption (Romans. 19-22).
xxx xxxxxxxx works at the Climactic Research Unit, UEA, Norwich, and is a member of South Park Evangelical Church.
It is a bit worrying from a dispassionate scientific perspective.
http://www.e-n.org.uk/p-1129-Climate-change-and-the-Christian.htm
fishshocker on December 03, 2009 at 03:59 PM
"...there is actual evidence for climate change, it is not a belief system."
Wowee! How true - there is. Earthshaking news!
But you were being rude to Indy whom you say was talking about MMGW/AGW, not climate change. Incidentally I can't find Indy's posting - was it on a different page?
Please can we see your real evidence that links AGW to climate change.
To save time, let me point out that real evidence does not include fictional positive forcing that only exists in a black box in Norwich or somewhere, or links to alarmist web sites that dodge the issue and answer different questions, often repeating ad nauseum the simplistic version of the greenhouse warming hypothesis, which sells well.
Real evidence also needs to account for the fluctuations of temperature and CO2 levels that have occurred both in recent times and in the ancient past, including the present and past cessations of warming trends since the 17th century.
Such real evidence would also be independent of any fiddling of temperature figures for propaganda purposes that we have known was going on but no-one outside the clique could prove until now, because correlation is not causation. Temperature data, fiddled or not, does not tell us anything about its cause, either way. Finagling is therefore a secondary issue, although important in terms of the legal and political implications.
You will be the first to provide real evidence of more than an insignificant amount of AGW, or of an increase in the greenhouse effect. I would like to be the first to congratulate you, on your way to collect a Nobel prize.
You can provide real evidence, can you, or were just rudely contradicting Indy (wherever [s]he is) without engaging brain before mouth?
Climate e-mail hack "will impact on Copenhagen summit"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8392611.stm
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent
E-mails hacked from a climate research institute suggest climate change does not have a human cause, according to Saudi Arabia's lead climate negotiator. Mohammad Al-Sabban told BBC News that the issue will have a "huge impact" on next week's UN climate summit, with countries unwilling to cut emissions.
Human impact denied
The e-mails issue arose two weeks ago when hundreds of messages between scientists at the university's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and their peers around the world were posted on the world wide web, along with other documents. CRU maintains one of the world's most important datasets on how global temperatures have changed.
Climate "sceptics" have claimed that the e-mails undermine the scientific case for climate change being caused by humanity's greenhouse gas emissions, dubbing the issue "ClimateGate". But it has not until now materialised as an issue likely to influence the Copenhagen negotiations, which are supposed to agree a new global deal on combating climate change to supplant the Kyoto Protocol.
Saudi Arabia is an influential member of the G77/China bloc which leads the "developing world" side in many elements of the UN negotiations. Mr Al-Sabban made clear that he expects it to derail the single biggest objective of the summit - to agree limitations on greenhouse gas emissions.
"It appears from the details of the scandal that there is no relationship whatsoever between human activities and climate change," he told BBC News. "Climate is changing for thousands of years, but for natural and not human-induced reasons. So, whatever the international community does to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will have no effect on the climate's natural variability."
Some other countries shared this view, he said; and as a result, governments would not be prepared to countenance agreeing anything that would affect economic growth for many years, until "new evidence" settled the scientific picture. However, governments might be willing to commit to "no-cost" measures to constrain emissions, he said, while Western nations should be prepared to assist poor vulnerable countries financially as they prepared for impacts of "the already happening natural climate change".
Mr Al-Sabban said the UN summit should encourage a "full investigation" of the CRU e-mails affair.
Tremayne on December 03, 2009 at 11:58 AM
Eat your heart out.
The green movement has not been the noble movement that it was when it started for a long time. It no longer has credibility except as a rather nasty anti-west pressure group.
The tactic of misrepresenting the effects of the products of combustion has served our enemies well for two decades, and the political fallout has caused an expensive societal instability that has damaged wwestern nations. However, it has only ever fooled part of the people. It couldn't go on for ever. Eventually the deception was going to collapse.
Hopefully you are going to have to think of something else now.
Chriswlan said
"The climate has abruptly stopped warming"
It is about time we put this one to bed. The Pacific ocean temperature varies due to the El Nino cycle, and has a powerful effect on the climate.
The temperature spiked in 1997 due to an unusually powerful El Nino, and has since been in a more normal, or even cold (La Nina) state.
We are now entering another El Nino phase and can expect a resumption of the long-term warming trend.
This change in ocean temperature is called the El Nino Southern Oscillation. It is extremely well-studied and causes variation around the long term trend. This DOES NOT mean that the long-term trend is not going up.
Please ask if you still don't understand.
Alright, I've read a lot of material in these comments that, frankly, is over my head. I'm not afraid to admit that, or take the advice of people more qualified than myself.
It seems relatively undisputed by all that there is some form of 'climate change' going on. Some are arguing that it has been accelerated by man, others that climate change is a naturally occuring process.
I will be honest - I don't care to place blame on one cause or another. No matter what the root cause, what do we do we need to do, going forward, to sustain? Do we do nothing? Will climate change persist in spite of our best efforts, so we need to buck up and be prepared to ride out the wave? Are there proactive steps we need to take to lesson our contribution? What do I do, as an individual, to control climate change's effects?
We can sort the faults out after the fact, but we need assurances and solutions now.
Indy says
"worship at the alter of MMGW that's your prerogative. But don't impose your religion on the non believers and skeptics"
Get real Indy, there is actual evidence for climate change, it is not a belief system.
I can understand why you don't want it to be true, but not why you ignore the evidence.
Looks to me like pretty blind faith in media pundits who tell you what you want to hear.
Blind faith, but with no actual evidence - now that sounds like a religion.
That woman in charge of the EPA has a degree in English. Roger Harbinger (as Harriban was mocked years ago for his watchwords "it may already be too late") the BBC environment expert has a degree in English. Eddie Miliband our (God help us) environment Minister has a degree in history, and was appropriately mocked by Chinese students on his visit for not being qualified in science like their ministers. But the real scientists are now braving the AGW mafia and giving testimony. The dark days of the AGM tyranny are now ending thank goodness.
If the politicians aren't listening to us (you know, the electorate, the tax-payer), there is only one thing to do - carry out a policy of peaceful non-complience.
Adopt the attitude that, if it is a carbon-related tax/levy they want from us - say "can't pay - won't pay!"
They may actually listen then? Remember, we are many - they are few.
Time to stop all this nonsense - once and for all. Carry out proper, transparent, verifiable research into climatic changes and its likely causes - completely free of political intervention.
In the meantime use our adavanced Western technology to improve the lives of people in impoverished areas. Now, if our politicians were honest about a tax for that kind of thing maybe there would not be so much disquiet at the moment eh?
Now just where is this Maurice Strong (Darth Sidius) bloke? I would like a word with him - he has a few things to answer for!
A note to Mr Jeff Softley on December 02, 2009 at 09:06 PM
[The basic facts have never changed.] Can’t argue with facts.
[A few misguided scientists did not follow protocol in terms of how they wished to convey their findings.] Scientifically deduced findings: OK.
Making things up for no valid reason: Not OK.
[CO2 still going up] Agree.
[Methane up] Disagree.
[Oceans rising] Some places Yes, others No.
Not at the Maldives or Tuvalu, for example.
[Diseases spreading] Evolution at work, as always.
[Storms worsening] Disagree.
[Glaciers melting] Some unquestionably are, but why?
As a simple minded layman I would guess as follows.
Case O1: Ocean temperature decreases. Less evaporation. Less snowfall over land.
Case O2: Ocean temperature increases. More evaporation. More snowfall over land.
Case G1: Glacier temperature decreases. Less thawing.
Case G2: Glacier temperature increases. More thawing.
O1+G1: Less snow and less thawing. Does the glacier advance or retreat?
O1+G2: Less snow but more thawing. The glacier retreats.
O2+G1: More snow but less thawing. The glacier advances.
O2+G2: More snow and more thawing. Does the glacier advance or retreat?
Global cooling is O1+G1 and global warming is O2+G2. In neither case is it clear whether glaciers would automatically be expected to grow or retreat. You need competent scientific research beyond the means of the casual layman to determine what really happens and why.
Delusional nonsense from Ted Davison @ 9.12 pm that CRU destroy raw data.
So what countries and climate stations have had their data destroyed?
If you don`t name any, this is obviously another Coolist slander.
Perhaps you take the CRU saying on day 1 that an item is lost (= missing) in a data set they were sent, into meaning they deliberately lost it (= destroyed). And ignore that the column of data was found on day 2, then used.
Brant @ 11.26 pm gives a wise review of the e-mails, and how Coolists are deliberately changing the meaning of words like trick.
The scandal now is that libel proceedings aren`t yet being taken by CRU against the ring of conspirators.
These wicked men including Christopher Booker, need to understand how greatly their falsification of evidence for personal profit is resented.
I hope when the courts take over that the substantial damages will be given to Green charities.
I am sorry for breaking away from the specific point in the debate but I would like to comment on this whole saga in a more general sense. Although I agree wholeheartedly with the deep concern expressed with the accused scientific factions conspiracy and believe this should be sternly dealt with through official (impartial) channels, I too think that we need to perhaps not just look at the global warming debate in isolation but in terms of how it has served as a catalyst to raise greater awareness of the role that humanity plays in the world. The cancerous role we have made our own up until this point where we seem to be determined to consume or destroy all other living organisms does not seem like a wise mans prerogative unless the only jungle we want left is one of concrete and tar. With this in mind the climate change issue has unleashed a whole new age of technological discovery and alternative thinking on our place and responsibilities in the world and as a result has brought about a green revolution whereby we are trying to live a more harmonious responsible existence to save what is left of our beautiful planet. I would find it hard to believe that even the most vehement anti-Anthropogenic Global Warming(AGW) activist can argue that these results are a negative. I think this scandal has once again given humanity the easy way out to avoid living responsibly and justifying them keeping their precious status quo and continuing to live with gay abandon for their impact on the world. I believe that a more sustainable, responsible dare I say "greener" world can only be a good thing for us and the planet in the long run and it is sad to think that we needed to be threatened with the imminent doom of global warming at our own hands to spur us into making changes that we should have made anyway as the stewards of our planet. It is sad that the only way to convince people to save the rainforests for example is through justifying their existence in a monetary term in voluntary carbon credits which wouldn’t have any value if AGW is proven to be a farce so what happens to the forests then? I just hope that after the dust settles the green baby doesn’t land up getting thrown out with the AGW bathwater...
So...
The climate has abruptly stopped warming.... (Anybody, "scientists", politico's... paying attention? Hint: there is a lucrative industry to be "created", guys....)
Scientists over the last few years are seeing the first sign of cooling...
We are on the verge of a CATASTROPHIC little ice age...
And what are Gubmints doing? Where are their contingency plans for emergency huge increases in atmospheric CO2??? Mothballing windmills, nukes, etc?
The settled science does say that CO2 is a powerful GHG, right? We all want to COMBAT CLIMATE CHANGE, don't we???
So let's multiply the smokestacks! The time for a War on the coming Ice Age is NOW!!!
Big Brother: Heeeeelllllpppppp!
Chriswlan
PS: as I've just saved the Universe, remember to send some grant$ my way, OK?
from the guardian comments section:
I say read the Harry_read_me.txt file...
They say you are a deniar, I say read this evidence for yourself.
DENIAR, DENIAR
I say their are obvioulsy 2 views. Here is the evidnece and facts (of course the emails are damming to ) that brought me to my judgement. You have a look, see what you think.
DENIAR< DENIAR< DENIAR!!!!
The Harry_Read_me.txt file is totally authenticated as coming from CRU (they have not denied it!)
DENIAR, DENIAR
ANUYONE in the world can read this file for themselves....
How on earth do the IPCC, UN and mainstream media (that's you bbc) think they can spin their way out of this one.
DENIAR! - re-educate him now.
He's been on the case for some time as you probably know, with some very pertinent statements and quotes.
“What is concisely referred to as global warming, is a fatal mistake of the present time.”
Václav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic
"Environmentalism is a way of introducing new forms of statism, new forms of masterminding human society from above.”
Václav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic, Cato Institute
Also:
"Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment.
My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice."
Václav Klaus President of the Czech Republic, interview with "Hospodáøské Noviny"
Even some Guardian readers get it:
"They will have private views, but are very used to keeping these out of their work ? indeed the entire scientific method is based on conducting research which can be replicated by peers in order to check its accuracy and objectivity."
Oh yes, I can just see poor old Harry concurring on this description of CRU's treatment of the data.
Or, to put it in his own words:
"OH **** THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found."
Better bank that cheque quick, Mark, I'm not sure 'working full time on climate change' is going to be quite the moneyspinner it used to be. . .
So...
The climate has abruptly stopped warming.... (Anybody, "scientists", politico's... paying attention? Hint: there is a lucrative industry to be "created", guys....)
Scientists over the last few years are seeing the first sign of cooling...
We are on the verge of a CATASTROPHIC little ice age...
And what are Gubmints doing? Where are their contingency plans for emergency huge increases in atmospheric CO2??? Mothballing windmills, nukes, etc?
The settled science does say that CO2 is a powerful GHG, right? We all want to COMBAT CLIMATE CHANGE, don't we???
So let's multiply the smokestacks! The time for a War on the coming Ice Age is NOW!!!
Big Brother: Heeeeelllllpppppp!
Chriswlan
PS: as I've just saved the Universe, remember to send some grant$ my way, OK?
""tricks" which meant one thing to the scientist who used it ("a clever trick to combine observational and proxy data to get a more complete time series") and another thing as represented by global warming deniers ("deceit, fraud, lies, conspiracy"). "
------------
Yeah, why would anyone see "fraud" and "lies" in that particular comment? I suppose there's this...
"No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstruction."
- Michael Mann, 2004
"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards)"
- Phil Jones, 1999
David Welch on December 02, 2009 at 07:46 PM
"And maybe you will recall my comments of past months about answering questions on physics."
If you have no grasp of the physics, what are you doing on this blog criticising those who have?
I repost my very simple question, I'll remove the typos so that there is no possibility of confusion.
First, do you understand the meaning of "Inverse Logarithmic"?
Would you agree that, since the Industrial Revolution, the Earth has warmed (and let's be generous here and round up from the CRU's estimate) 1.0 deg. Kelvin (you do know what Kelvin is, of course)?
Do you also agree that the CO2 concentration has risen by 50% (I'm being generous again) from 250 ppm to 380 ppm?
Now, given the above information, with your scientific understanding of climate physics, you will be able to tell me how many ppm the CO2 will be needed, and the resulting atmospheric ppm, to rise to produce each degree K of temperature rise from 1 degree above current to 6 degrees above current, as predicted by the AGW hysterics.
You can do that, can't you?
Note that yet again I'm being generous and ignoring the probability that the CO2's absorption bands will become saturated.
So come on, David, I'm not the only one here who wants to see if you are motivated by anything other than some sort of pseudo-religious belief in the sanctity of the progressively disintegrating AGW fiasco.
It's a simple question that is fundamental to any understanding of Greenhouse Gas Effect.
Prove you actually know enough to criticise others on their knowledge and understanding.
But you can't, can you?
this is such a heavy subject...
wait!
i know what we need...
its
comedy time of the day:
maybe it was Hitler behind global warming? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGdbHW9Nlds
Consider then the statements made by some of the key players and beneficiaries of climate change (weather) previously "Global Warming" which was renamed climate change because the earth wasn't doing what the globalists wanted it to do. Pathetic they are.
"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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"We've got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy."
- Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world."
- Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations
on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.”
- Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“The models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful.”
- Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I believe it is appropriate to have an 'over-representation' of the facts
on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience."
- Al Gore,
Climate Change activist
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"It doesn't matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true."
- Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Unless we announce disasters no one will listen."
- Sir John Houghton,
first chairman of IPCC
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The only way to get our society to truly change is to
frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe."
- emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and
spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest
opportunity to lift Global Consciousness to a higher level."
- Al Gore,
Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"We are on the verge of a global transformation.
All we need is the right major crisis..."
- David Rockefeller,
Club of Rome executive member
Unfortunately I have to disagree with one point. Climategate is the second biggest scientific scandal of our age. Evolution is still solidly number one . . . again, unfortunately.
The AGW alarmists love to attack the deniers as the ones who have a massive financial stake in this, but it's actually the other way around.
Please read the article 'Climategate: Follow the money' from the Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB40001424052748703939404574566124250205490.html
People who point to anecdotal evidence like pictures of glaciers are missing the point, and shows a misunderstanding of the whole issue. Changes to glaciers, rainfall patterns, temp fluctuations, whatever - have always happened. These are driven by natural influences and not CO2. There is no evidence avaialble to even remotely suggest that CO2 is responsible for these changes. A computer model is never evidence, especially one that is not even remotely close! All the evidence is to the contrary.
Solar irradiance, length of solar cycles, cosmic rays, geomagentism, tectonic activity (notably undersea volcanism), ocean cycles (in particular PDO and AMO), polar ozone intermixing, the water cycle (atmospheric water vapour content), solar magenetism, the Milankovitch cycles, the albedo effect, even solar/lunar associations. All of these influences are downplayed by the IPCC and their modellers and closed-shop scientists. Their whole theory falls apart because it underplays these influences significantly. That is WHY they have had to manipulate the data, to try and get the numbers to fit their theory. Not to mention overcook their theories on CO2 residence time, positive water vapour feedback and outgoing long-wave radiation.
The IPCC was established to make the theory fit the observations, not the other way around! People don't understand this - the IPCC is a political organisation, its not a scientific organisation.
Recent empirical EVIDENCE obtained from satellites (and not computer models!) confirms the IPCC and its clique have got all these grossly wrong.
As an environmental scientist, yes I used to believe too - but a real scientist should always look at the evidence themselves. Iam embarressed I used to be a 'warmist', but that was many years ago, and recent events vindicate me and as this continues will vindicate the thousands of scientists out there who stuck to their guns, believed in true science and didn't sell out to a political ideology. That's what Lysenko did!
For those of you commenters who are citing examples of climate change (e.g. melting glaciers) to somehow prove that man is causing global warming you are simply pointing out the effects of climate change. You are saying NOTHING about whether or not man is causing it.
Quit bring up the effects and lets debate the cause...
I watched tonight's BBC news. It mentioned climategate, or at least that Prof Jones was suspended because of leaked emails. It did not mention the leaked computer programs. We then had an 'expert' giving us the standard spiel about overwhelming evidence of global warming being down to humans. I must admit, though, he looked haunted and uncomfortable.
Mike Donald on December 02, 2009 at 10:21 PM
"Must be falsified photos then..."
Maybe, but both your links pointed to the same page. Nice picture though.
If your intention was to illustrate symptoms of global warming because two photos of the same glacier taken at the same time of year a long time apart showed a retreat of the glacier, then you are pushing against an open door. Only an idiot would dispute that there has been a warming trend.
However, the temperature data would be true regardless of the cause, so by itself it does not prove anything one way or the other. Correlation is not causation.
For example, the record shows that past warming periods opened mountain passes that had remained impassable since the end of a previous warm period so long ago that memories of the route had been lost. As we enter another warming phase some of these passes become accessible again and we find evidence of a previous human presence long ago, preserved by the ice. Warming and cooling is not an unusual phenomenon.
The warm monger unsceptics insist on harping on about recent warming as though it is evidence of something more than just recent warming.
They never provide a real link to AGW. They just assert that there is one and quote computer models as evidence. But the computer models were caught out when they failed to predict the recent levelling of the warming trend. Thus the models have only proved that the computers are working, and that they have been wrong every time so far.
That is why I have never received a satisfactory response when I challenge people to present real evidence of more than an insignificant amount of AGW or an increase in the greenhouse effect - hardly surprising since there isn't any. Computer models are not evidence. Neither is a warming trend by itself.
Worst scandal of our generation? Really? How about the South Korean scientist who claimed to have cloned animals? That was out and out fraud.
All I've seen out this so far is a couple of emails whose meaning has been seriously misrepresented due to the choice of words with positive and negative meanings, like "tricks" which meant one thing to the scientist who used it ("a clever trick to combine observational and proxy data to get a more complete time series") and another thing as represented by global warming deniers ("deceit, fraud, lies, conspiracy").
This is the most over-blown non-story of the last century. (Which included Piltdown Man, Cold Fusion, and innumerable "fuel from water" and zero point energy cranks, I might point out, not to mention the cover-up of tobacco cancer links by a massive PR campaign by the tobacco industry, many of whose personnel and techniques have been inherited by the current anti-anthropogenic global warming movement). Climate science reposes on innumerable data sources, some observational (satellite data, weather station data, direct observations by scientists on ice flows, etc.) and some proxy (ice cores, tree rings, sediments, fossils, etc.)
There are thousands of scientists working for the world's national meteorological organizations on climate change and innumerable other public and private bodies. Every major government in the world is over-seeing their own research programmes.
These emails were stolen and then cherry-picked to give pseudo-substantion to insane, unfounded conspiracy theories. That's the tactics of UFO nuts.
The preconceptions of AGW deniers are warping the words of a handful of scientists, who may not be saints, but neither are they the Illuminati nor the Elders of Zion.
And judging from what I've seen of the "evidence", aren't even doing anything wrong based on those very same emails, unless you count using a jargon which is easily misunderstood by non-scientists with an a priori dispostion to misunderstand and distort what they read.
This "scandal" is a feeble and frivolous attempt to fuel already overblown conspiracy thinking and F.U.D. (fear, uncertainty and doubt) campaigns, to quote the Tobacco executive who invented the acronym.
The BBC clearly does not deserve the license tax (sorry fee) ... when it misses totally one of the biggest scandals around (along with the theft of our nation and democracy by traitors).
They do not deserve the fee and I shall withhold it until we get a return of our democracy.
Does this 'conspiracy' mean, that most of the glaciers haven't been melting after all?
Or, have they been advancing??.
Grinnell Glacier, Glacier National Park, Montana, 1910
http://www.bigskyfishing.com/National_parks/glacier/grinnell-glacier-gallery/view-trail2.php
Grinnell Glacier today
http://www.bigskyfishing.com/National_parks/glacier/grinnell-glacier-gallery/view-trail2.php
Must be falsified photos then...
Glaciers glaciers - now we're back to empirical observations so go find a Victorian glacier... e.g or whatever
google-images
victorian glacier
and I get
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/2673046/Hulton-Archive
"Victorian travellers trekking on the Chamonix Glacier in the Savoy Alps. (Photo by William England/Getty Images)"
Lots of ice!
Then I googled for a recent pic
Chamonix Glacier
and got...
http://images.travelpod.com/users/mimmy21/em-rtw-2007.1173460080.chamonix_glacier.jpg
If you look at the curve of the mountain slope it looks like the pics were taken in roughly the same position.
A LOT less ice! Serious changes in the past century.'course if you really want to get into this you're into "mass balance" and other fancy terms. Stick to pics I say.
QED.
BTW there seems to be two things that deniers avoid taking on.
National Geographic Magazine
and
College lecturers teaching global warming.
If your job is supported by a grant to research global warming and there is none, your job will go away. So you keep it going by showing that global warming exists. Follow the $$
Under the direction of Dr. Phil Jones, the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia has, without fanfare, made the greatest methodological advance in the history of science. Their new procedure is without doubt the most elegant and sure way of proceeding from a pre-conceived idea to a foregone conclusion.
Hitherto secret details of the practical application of this radical new method are available at http://www.climate-gate.org/ but the process can be summarised as follows:
1. Obtain raw data
2. Select sub-set apparently most consistent with required trend
3. Analyse sub-set
4. If result confirms trend, go directly to step 6
5. Otherwise, re-select / re-analyse as necessary
6. Extrapolate trend to apocalyptic conclusion
7. Prepare excuses for non-release of data in response to FoIA / EIR requests
8. If 7 fails, destroy raw data
9. Prepare draft report
10. Submit draft report to peer review
11. If support unanimous, publish
12. Otherwise:
12.1 Browbeat dissenters into agreement
OR
12.2 Suppress their views
OR
12.3 Initiate ad hominem media campaign to discredit them
13. Release press statement asserting 'overwhelming support in the scientific community'
14. In view of universal acclaim, submit claim for increased funding
15. Return to step 1
Footnote
Below, without superfluous comment, the University of East Anglia's disarmingly candid statement of its philosophical position:
'UEA’s academic thinking was distinctive from the word go. The choice of ‘Do Different’ as the University’s motto was a deliberate signal that it was going to look at new ways of providing university education.'
Dr. Tim Ball's recent statement reinforces my earlier comment on this thread (December 1, 10:11 PM):
From Dr. Tim Ball Wednesday, December 2, 2009
"Gored
Al Gore is the only Nobel Prize winner, whose work was ruled politically biased and containing nine major scientific errors by a court (UK) a week before it was awarded. The Nobel Committee should have known. They could argue they’d already made their decision. Problem is there was considerable evidence about the errors easily available long before. Clearly they didn’t do their homework, so their decision was purely political. The Prize should be revoked.
Gore shared his prize with the members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He used their research, but went further. He misused it to achieve the falsehoods that permeate his movie An Inconvenient Truth. Now we know through the files obtained from the Climatic Research Unit in East Anglia (Climategate), that all the information put in the global arena was falsified, manipulated and deliberately made wrong. Silence of those involved in climategate about Gore’s misuse of their false data tells several stories. They couldn’t point out the error and risk exposure. Like everything they did the end justified the means. Gore was useful. He distracted the mainstream media and kept the global warming pot boiling while they had access to power behind the scenes through the IPCC. He was the buffoon who distracted the audience from the real villains. Again the Nobel committee didn’t do their homework and made a political decision. This Prize should also be revoked."
This cover-up & demonizing of anyone that disagrees with the pseudoscience is nothing new, the evolutionists have been doing that for decades.
I much prefer the term "WarmerGate", which was coined by this columnist's colleague Mark Steyn: it is closer to the original, "WaterGate".
It`s hilarious to see Catweazle wriggling out of his message in which he denied talking about glaciers in any post, by saying what he talked about was "the retreat of glaciers".
Now you are in partial retreat, Catweazle, an apology for calling me delusional about this would help your credibility.
And maybe you will recall my comments of past months about answering questions on physics.
Unless yourself, I stick to matters on which I have some knowledge.
Phew. I was worried for a moment there. Glad that cleared up the FUD.
Thank you to Simon Ratsey for coming on here @ 4.41 pm and telling of your 50 years of observations in Somerset.
Also for your interesting insights on the lack of frost and higher minima leading to higher mean temperatures.
I believe what your 50 years of conscientious effort have shown, but the Coolists here sadly won`t.
Instead they will be demanding your data, for free of course, so that they can distort and doctor until it fits their own religious view.
Why else do the Coolists shout so much about obtaining data sets if it`s not to distort them.
Now that Phil Jones has been forced out all of us who make careful conscientious observations of weather or biology related to weather can expect the same vicious attacks.
David Welch on December 02, 2009 at 05:20 PM
"How else can you explain the retreat of the glaciers, only a few thousand years ago"
Ah, so it's the retreat of the glaciers that marked the end of the Ice Age we're talking about is it, not the modern assertion of glacial retreat?
As I observed, the glaciers retreated a few thousand years ago.
Surely you're not about to question that too, David?
Anyway, how about an answer to my question of December 02, 2009
at 03:05 PM, David? Simple physics, I'm sure you can cope with that.
Or is that somewhat more taxing than arguing, as I suspect you are attempting to, over the precise meaning of the words "few thousand" in a geological context?
Everyone please remember, climate, climate change and weather are words to describe what the planet earth has been doing for a very long time.
AGW (man made climate change) is just a theory, programmed into a computer model, that say a very small additional % of CO2(< 0.1 % of Total green house gases), will cause accelerated global warming and massive scare story climate change.
It is not the emails, look at the code.
Have just a small team developed the model
Harry (of the notorius Harry_READ_ME.txt file - freely available on the interent - Totally authenticated as real) is trying to make sense of what went before (in the climate models used to produce results) Tim is not around any more.
"What did TIM do? as I keep asking" he wails.
As he works his way through 'TIMS's labyrinthine' code/suites"
Are you happy that a VERY small team of guys (few more unidentifed perhaps) wrote all this stuff in fortran - that is goinng to form a trillion dollar carbon economy?
Nor are the literally tens of thousand of programmer IT guys, scientists, who are reacting in horror at the leak - It's the code, not the emails that they keep shouting to the journalists - look at the code.
Harry_Read_ME.txt is out there, AGW is finished
Capitalist
on December 02, 2009
at 03:46 PM
Thanks for the link to the "shocking article on scientific method". It made my skin creep.
I'm particularly disturbed by the phrase (at the end)"the public as partner in the creation and implementation of scientific knowledge in the policy domain." The CREATION of knowledge?!? God help us!
Kim has had plenty to say today, but being that she doesn`t yet understand our temperature scales, can we trust her other views.
I quote what she said at 8.21 am:
"Benson, in Oxfordshire, registered a low of minus 23F (4.9C) overnight with Chesham, Bucks, registering minus 27F (3C). "
Go Catweazle! You have them rattled.
Simon Ratsey on December 02, 2009 at 04:41 PM
Simon, the issue is not that the temperature has been rising slowly since some point in the 19th century, apparently with an oscillation every 60 years or so. You are pushing against an open door in remarking on the last half century of the warming.
However, the temperature data would be the same regardless of the cause.
The bottom line is that the reason for the warming is the subject of disputed hypotheses.
The alarmists claimed the down swing of the oscillation that ended around 1970 and raised a panic about an impending ice age. They (including some of the previous 'coldists') then claimed the upswing that started in the 1970s and ended about 10 years ago, raising a new scare with claims of runaway global warming, based on computer models that were discredited when the warming stopped, contrary to their predictions. Belief in such antics can be dismissed as hysteria.
What is at issue is the cause(s) of climate change. There is no real evidence that mankind's CO2 has had an effect in any significant way. It would have been extremely unlikely given the physics involved, in any case. In addition, there is no evidence of an increase in the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere.
The evidence is just not there. The whole AGW industry is a fraud.
David Welch also known as Bookergate we all await your answer to the question put to you by Catweazle at 3.05pm.
If you need help David I would suggest you do a quick Google search for Norm Kalmanovitch.
How dare Catweazle come on here @ 3.05 pm and forget once more what he and I have said in messages.
When I challenge an obvious error, he says he didn`t make the statement, even though it appears under his name on this messageboard where everyone can see it.
On the Gordon Rayner thread that started on 27 November there was a message from Catweazle @ 3.41 pm on 28 November:
""No-one is claiming that the climate does not change and is not changing, it does it all the time, and there is a great deal more variability involved than is being demonstrated at the moment.
How else can you explain the retreat of the glaciers, only a few thousand years ago?""
I challenged him on the timing of glacier retreat, then at 11.30 pm we had Catweazle say he had never mentioned glaciers:
""Oh, by the way, I never mentioned glaciers in any post, so it seems you're delusional, to boot""
When someone is so forgetful, there`s sim-ply no point in arguing with him.
How long will Christopher Booker continue to deny the basic facts? My own weather records for the same part of Somerset, spanning 50 years, show a remarkable warming trend. This is mirrored by the Met. Office's database. Since 1990,new record monthly mean temperatures have been set for each month except December, January, March and June. The current decade will be the warmest ever. We may not be getting more hot summers at the moment, but average minimum temperatures are about 1.5C higher than in the 1960s. (That's a lot.) We've just had the 3rd warmest November on record. Our first proper frost this autumn was 17 days later than the previous Latest Date for the First Frost! If such marked changes are happening in the relatively moderate climate of Somerset, it's no surprise that bigger changes are being recorded in more extreme climates around the world. There is no conspiracy - climate change has already happened, and quickly enough to be observed in less than a lifetime. The worrying thing is the increasing rate of change.
Those who cast doubt on the AGW 'orthordoxy' are often accused of having a vested interest (being in the employ of oil companies etc.).
However, it is reported that Al Gore's personal wealth has increased by more that forty-fold since he started his global warming campaign. If this is so, then people might be forgiven for concluding that Mr Gore himself has a 'vested interest'.
Please will everyone remember:
Climate and 'Climate Change' and weather, is what the planet Earth has been doing for a very long time.
AGW (or man made climate change) is the theory that the very small % of additional green house , CO2 that man adds to the total amount of green house gases will course accelerated global warming (or it was last week)
Don't mix the 2 up...
Hurricanes will happen, so will floods, all around the world, some glaciers are shrinking, some are growing, the artic ices waxes and wanes as it has doing for billions of years..
Try, as a thought experiment, to produce a computer 'model' for another complex system (much less so).
A pool table, you will whack the white into the ball at high speed. You are allowed to measure, EVERYTHING, every possible parameter, from a STATIC starting point. Assume nothing else unknown at the start will influence events, following the ball is hit.
Write a computer model for this complex system (have as long as you want to develop it and the best 'rocket scientists', nobel prize winners, in fact anybody you want from any field to help you, and as many as you want of the best computers and computer programmers.
And can you predict where the balls will end up??
NO. As any competant physicist will explain..
And does this raise some questions, about the 'climate computer model', I think so.
Naive (and many highly clever ones) computer programmers will try to model any comlex system, and of course models produce results, many such models, produce many results, people in the field, have similar idea, try things out, over time the models converge..
So, over time you have a consensus, about the complex chaotic system you are 'modelling'
In finance all the finest minds in the last 30 years started doing this, the old bankers did not understand it (cdo, derivatives, etc)
But no climate model. This model could of course effect the outcome, people bought sold, so became self fulfilling. A climate model in a computer, does not actually interact with the real world.
Hundreds of thousand of people, hundreds of millions of dollars was spent developing the finance computer models.
How accurate were these models at predicting risk.
Warrent Buffet warned of: "Weapons of Mass Final Destruction"
Harry_read_me.txt to quote, an unidentified voice on the internet, the emails were a smoking machine gun, this is the A bomb.
Another - insensitive quote - regarding data handling -"they didn't torture the data, they waterboarded it"
At CRU, and no one doubts (whatever they spin), this centre is at the heart of AGW, IPPC and the UN MAN MADE climate change 'religion'
I have allready seen a new phrase being used instead of global warming, was climate change, now - climate science
Don't forget seen here first
Please will everyone remember:
Climate and 'Climate Change' and weather, is what the planet Earth has been doing for a very long time.
AGW (or man made climate change) is the theory that the very small % of additional green houses gases that humans produces will course accelerated global warming (or it was last week)
Don't mix the 2 up...
Hurricanes will happen, so will floods, all around the world, some glaciers are shrinking, some are growing, the artic ices waxes and wanes as it has doen for thousands of millenia..
Man Made Climate Changes is about taxing now. A trillion dollar carbon economy has been predicted in a few years. The 21st century 'tulip' bubble, perpetuated for ever, by the UN
The amount of CO2 emitted by a decent volcanic eruption in 24 hours far exceed any out put by man. Look at sat photos of Mt Etna's last eruption and notice the lack of a smoke cloud coming from European cities and the very present stain from Etna.
We can not control vulcanism and the bulk of all suck gases come from the ring of fire. That in its self renders these scientists ponzi scheme artists, not to mention the effect of solar flares. Anyone remember the global warming device in the sky? The star known as Sol around which we orbit?
I am a mature student studying full-time for an MSc degree in sustainable energy systems at a very large university in the UK. My background is in electrical/electronic engineering within HM Forces, government and in commerce. I consider myself an even-tempered and well-balanced individual with an open mind. I therefore have plenty of experience – both as a mature individual and as a professional engineer.
I undertook this course of study because I felt that in the future, if mankind wanted to maintain any reasonable standard of living, clean, alternative energy systems would be required to assist in this aim (and I am afraid I include nuclear power in this). To help out mankind - that was my primary motivation. Although I was unsure about the AGW argument, I erred on the side of caution and went along with what the so-called experts said at the time.
I think I am a pretty good judge of character and I can spot a lie and a fraud when I see one. What I know now and what I have learned, in regards to “Climategate”, and other information that has come my attention beforehand (and since), leads me to believe that we are all being deceived and effectively the whole AGW problem is just a myth used as a smokescreen to detract from another, much more sinister, agenda.
How for instance can you possibly now use the discredited data which emanated from CRU as a basis for which the IPCC can issue policy advice to global governments, including our own – and when so much depends upon it? The data is corrupted, subverted, massaged, call it what you like – it is now un-defendable. Any documents, graphs, conclusions, reports, are now surely invalid and void? Where is the integrity and honesty? The scientific and academic rigour? The quality and assurance? Where in fact is the raw data? What methodologies were used? What were the margins of error? What were the other inputs into the computer models and simulations? So many questions – not enough answers I am afraid.
To accept the “just trust me” argument, which the CRU and the IPCC are suggesting, especially with their dubious methods being recently exposed, is naivety beyond belief and anyone fool enough to accept it all at face value is not worthy of high office (WMD anyone?). To carry out the proposed cuts in CO2 would affect so many lives, in so many ways, and would simply be a complete dereliction of duty. And at the same time not solve a problem that does not appear to actually exist. I am afraid the only answer is to start again and get a real “consensus” this time.
As for Copenhagen? It should be abandoned – but who has the political backbone to do it? It takes a strong person to admit they are wrong and show some humility. And it also shows honesty and integrity – something politicians have not been very good at lately.
Like it or not the climate is always changing and our effect is negligible upon it. All we can do is accept this and adapt accordingly. We would be better off engineering solutions to natural climate change (as we always have done) not passing prohibitive tax and rule laws, which will just enslave everyone – except the chosen few.
Of course any right minded person wants to preserve the environment and work and live within a clean atmosphere, free of pollutants. That is one of the reasons why I will carry on in my new profession. Of course we should help our brothers in impoverished nations. But surely the best way to help them is to give them our most effective technology so that they can raise their standard of living? Not bring everybody down to a peasant's level of existence? But what is being proposed at Copenhagen will effectively shut down western economies and that is a complete recipe for disaster. The repercussions would be horrendous. Our leaders need to get that Green mist out of their eyes and start thinking rationally again – pretty damned quick in my opinion.
The BBC presents a shocking article on scientific method.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8388485.stm
The authors write:
"The classic virtues of scientific objectivity, universality and disinterestedness can no longer be claimed to be automatically effective as the essential properties of scientific knowledge."
So objectivity and truth are out the door. And what do we get instead? Something called "warranted knowledge":
"Instead, warranted knowledge - knowledge that is authoritative, reliable and guaranteed on the basis of how it has been acquired - has become more sought after than the ideal of some ultimately true and objective knowledge.
Warranted knowledge places great weight on ensuring that the authenticating roles of socially-agreed norms and practices in science are adequately fulfilled ..."
In other words, argument from authority. The masses aren't to think for themselves, they are simply to accept knowledge handed down to them by their superior obermenschen.
Classic post-modernism. When the economic argument for communism over capitalism was lost, the post-moderns turned on reason, because if reason is useless then individual rights and morality and freedom are out the door. Now they are losing the argument on science, and once again, they turn on reason.
All of this leads straight to the gas chamber. "But don't worry it's only a shower, all approved according to social norms. And don't try to argue, because there's no such thing as objective truth ..."
Frightening.
I have never seen a more relentlessly aggressive campaign of fear-mongering and guilt tripping than by those who push anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Those brave souls who have stood up and questioned AGW are labelled 'deniers', 'disbelievers' and even 'heretics'. Yes, AGW is now a religion and YOU are guilty of original sin. Many scientists, politicians, industry leaders and media-moguls are all reading from this very same hymn sheet.
Scepticism is an integral part of the scientific process and when goons like Al Gore drawl that 'the science is settled, the debate is over,' then you know something is wrong. Very wrong.
The real tragedy of the Copenhagen Treaty is not the elite's quest to slap a carbon tax on everything that moves. It is not even their insatiable drive to centralise world power with the legislative authority to enforce it. The real tragedy is those who are dying from their policies right now. Many farmers, particularly in the US have been incentivised to give over field space to grow biofuel crops. Thus, the price of food has escalated globally and is killing millions of the world's poorest and hungriest.
Climategate is the biggest story this side of the millennium. It will trump WMD's and 9/11 in terms of cost, death toll and erosion of liberty.
Speaking in last week's New Scientist, here's a quote from Richard Lindzen who is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology:
'I fervently hope that Copenhagen will avoid canonising the absurd notion that climate is determined by any single parameter like CO2. The dubious attempts to link this parameter to every form of catastrophe is producing unwarranted fear. Imposing this notion as a matter of international law will set science back several centuries. The accompanying policies seem designed to do the same for society as a whole. The carbon control movement, like every malicious movement, seeks to cloak itself in an aura of virtue. Sentient citizens should be able to see through this patent ploy.'
NOT the Worst; second to allowing the repeal of Newton's laws of motion in the WTC collapse. Buildings DO NOT fall through themselves at free fall speed!
When SKY News comes out of the closet I am looking forward to Jeff Randalls take on climate change. Hopefully next Friday or as a Special
Here’s Hoping
3:10 2_12_09
David Welch on December 02, 2009 at 12:57 PM
"The world has gone crazy, the basic principles of science ignored or unknown to the Coolists here."
OK, David, I've asked you this before, more than once, but inexplicably those were yhe only posts of mine that you ignored.
First, do you understand the meaning if "Inverse Logarithmic"?
Would you agree that, since the Industrial Revolution, the Earth has warmed (and let's be generous here and round up from the CRU's estimate) 1.0 deg. Kelvin (you do know what Kelvin is, of course)?
Do you also agree that the CO2 concentration has risen by 50% (I'm being generous again) from 250 ppm to 380 ppm?
Now, given the above information, with your scientific understanding of climate physics, you will be able to tell me how many ppm the CO2 will be needed, and the resulting atmospheric ppm, to rise to produce each degree K of temperature rise from 1 degree above current to 6 degrees above current, as predicted by the AGW hysterics.
You can do that, can't you?
Note that yet again I'm meing generous and ignoring the probability that the CO2's absorption bands will become saturated.
I, and all the other "Coolists" await your pearls of wisdom with bated breath.
"Well I just wonder how hundreds or even thousands of scientists all around the world organize their "global conspiracy"."
Is this not a question that should be put to the scientists concerned? It is their emails where they clam they are manipulating what documents are accepted, talk of blackballing journals and claiming to have removed editors that do not to the "concensus" line.
Do let us know their replies. :)
On other matters El Reg is running an article outlining the role of the Paleos.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/
Carbon trading scandal in Denmark. http://www.cphpost.dk/news/national/88-national/47643-denmark-rife-with-co2-fraud.html
Kim L, 08:21 The warmists view on life :
"wettest November on record ...
The average temperature was 45F (7.3C), 34.52 F (1.4C) above the long term average for November."
aaahhh !!! it's global warming !!!
When converting ACTUAL temperatures from Celsius to Fahrenheit, we multiply by 1.8 and add 32.
When converting temperature DIFFERENCES, we only multiply by 1.8 and don't add 32.
A temparature rise of 1.4C is the same as a rise or 2.52F, not 34.52!
So, in the Final Analysis, it seems that the Religion of Anthropogenic Climate Change is based on nothing more than Tribal Folklore.
Please will everyone remember:
Climate and 'Climate Change' and weather, is what the planet Earth has been doing for a very long time.
AGW (or man made climate change) is the theory that the very small % of additional green houses gases that humans produces will course accelerated global warming (or it was last week)
Don't mix the 2 up...
Hurricanes will happen, so will floods, all around the world, some glaciers are shrinking, some are growing, the artic ices waxes and wanes as it has doen for thousands of millenia..
Man Made Climate Changes is about taxing now. A trillion dollar carbon economy has been predicted in a few years. The 21st century 'tulip' bubble, perpetuated for ever, by the UN
I would just like to raise the following point : if the carbon taxes are a transfer of wealth from the developed world to the developing world , they are an impoverishing of the developed world . The developing world is poor because it has not generated it's wealth - like we did and like Asia is doing . This means that they will continue to not generate wealth . They will take what we give them and consume it and then they will still be poor and we will be made poor and it will be a lose lose situation . Now in my mind that is super dumb .
Notice how Mr. Gore is oh so, Ahem, conveinently talking about the economy now......LOL
"come up with a single convincing argument about why the overwhelming majority of scientists support the man made global warming position"
The only people with a vested interest in promoting so called global warming theories are those riding the gravy train.
We've seen through all this the nice tax payer funding they are handed out, nice trips to various sunny locations for "conferences", getting their fizzog on the telly standing next to Al Gore.
Why aren't you asking if they so overwhelmingly believe in MMGW why are they so scared to hand over data, why so much data has been fudged and lied about, why they have to use language to deflect away from inconsistencies in their arguments, why they've tried repeatedly to rewrite history.
On a technical point, I believe our brave AGW programmers need to know how much CO2 will be generated by industry over the next 50 or 100 years. They can then plug this input into their temperature versus CO2 correlation and watch with awe the coloured graphics plotted by the program, before gleefully feeding them to the BBC news channels. Estimating future CO2 production is an exercise in economics, not science. The UK spokesman to refer to on this is the noble Lord Stern of Brentford. To estimate CO2 for the coming 100 years would be simple matter I should think. Surely all you need to do is fit an exponential curve to the known CO2 output for the last century and evaluate the resulting equation over the current century. Easy! What could possibly be wrong with it? Er …
Lord Stern has announced this morning in The Times: “It’s worse than we thought. The cost of fighting global warming will be twice what we thought.” I am also a football fan and a supporter of Brentford and I say to Lord Stern: “Prove it! Show me your workings”. I promise not to tell the muddled and confused deniers.
So Kim comes on here @ 8.21 am and attaches more importance to 9 degrees of frost on one December night in the coldest part of the UK than to the mean temperature for November for the UK being 1.4 degress above the long-tern average.
The world has gone crazy, the basic principles of science ignored or unknown to the Coolists here.
That 1 day at 1 place means next to nothing, but that we need averages for as large an area as possible for periods of at least a month, better a year and better a decade, to conclude anything sensible on temperature trends.
And living near Braemar I can report today there is some blue sky and the temperatures are better than could be expected in December, and eveybody is out shopping in our village.
That will please those who want every scrap of data "released".
There may be some questions over whether increased CO2 is leading to climate change but can C Booker produce any evidence that increased CO2 levels are harmless? No I bet he can't. Anyway what's worng with striving to be more energy efficent and less wastefull?
"Study of ice caps/age by Yugoslavian geophysicist M Milankovitch showed - Any period of extensive glaciation (in which icesheets and icecaps expand over the Earth) occurring in the Earth's history, but particularly that in the Pleistocene epoch (last 2 million years), immediately preceding historic times. On the North American continent, glaciers reached as far south as the Great Lakes, and an icesheet spread over northern Europe, leaving its remains as far south as Switzerland. In Britain ice reached as far south as a line from Bristol to Banbury to Exeter. There were several glacial advances separated by interglacial (warm) stages, during which the ice melted and temperatures were higher than today. We are currently in an interglacial phase of an ice age.
Other ice ages have occurred throughout geological time: there were four in the Precambrian era, one in the Ordovician, and one at the end of the Carboniferous and beginning of the Permian. The occurrence of an ice age is governed by a combination of factors (the Milankovitch hypothesis): (1) the Earth's change of attitude in relation to the Sun – that is, the way it tilts in a 41,000-year cycle and at the same time wobbles on its axis in a 22,000-year cycle, making the time of its closest approach to the Sun come at different seasons; and (2) the 92,000-year cycle of eccentricity in its orbit around the Sun, changing it from an elliptical to a near circular orbit, the severest period of an ice age coinciding with the approach to circularity. There is a possibility that the Pleistocene ice age is not yet over. It may reach another maximum in another 60,000 years. "
I'd be more convinced by the climate change deniers if they could come up with a single convincing argument about why the overwhelming majority of scientists support the man made global warming position. If anyone has a vested interest in trashing the argument it is the businesses which pump out vast amounts of CO2 - oil companies, mining concerns and manufacturing companies.
I do believe that we need all the data out in the open and all fully analysed by competent hard science scientists . Much of it is simple analysis . The temperature record is actually freely available and the correlation between increasing CO2 producing increased warming is clearly not there - CO2 lags warming by at least 800 years . That the global temperature is correlated to the sun spot level is sound . The hypothesis by the rationalists that it is caused by deflection of cosmic radiation is not proven - primarily from the view that rain drops usually have ordinary dust particles at their center . The warmists can't limit their data sample to the last 40 years - that's clearly invalid . It must be at least 2000 years for the short term sample , and , at least several 100,000 years for the long term sample . The warmists also can't apply masaging algorithms . Samples must be taken in isolated rural areas either by direct measurement or by indirect measurement . If it is decided that any action needs to be taken the proposed action must be proved to have the desired results . This must by thoroughly sorted out before we , the tax payer , start paying out large sums of money .
I must say that my reaction when I read :-
"The "ClimateGate" affair"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8388485.stm
this morning was that it was totally perverted . The BBC is definitely not presenting the climate issue in a disinterested , objective and scientific manner . As such it is completely violating it's charter and completely nullifying it's raison d'etre .
I'm very disappointed with you BBC . I have always held you in high esteem . I know you slipped a bit over the MP's expenses scandal and that you have let things in general slip over the last few years . But your conduct over the climate issue is abominable . I don't really see any reason for your continued existence .
martin on December 02, 2009 at 09:47 AM
The dates of those quotes are interesting. They are all around the point where the downward trend levelled out and turned upward.
The momentum carried on for some time - I know that schools were still pushing the ice age scare in the 1980s, so it obviously took a while for the institutional panic to turn the corner. It may have been knocked on the head by Margaret Thatcher's attempts to demonise CO2 in order to create a political climate favourable to nuclear power because of the disruption of coal supplies by Labour's trade unionists.
Now the temperature graph is doing the opposite, precisely on time, and surprise surprise - what are we hearing?
Based on the last panic, the present version still has at least five more years to run.
However, there is a difference. This time, unfortunately, some rather menacing agendas have hijacked the issue for nefarious purposes. And we have an exhausted broken-down centralising socialist with all the wrong instincts to fight our corner in no 10.
It could well all end in tears.
A news story filed by Joelle Tessler of Associated Press (AP) described how major MSM (Main Stream Media) executives attending an FTC (Federal Trade Commission) conference on journalism recommended the government intervene on behalf of distressed media companies who are succumbing to decreasing print readership and advertising revenues.
Since the public refuses to recognize the need to pay for content, the MSM executives are now seeking government assistance in developing means to compel payments by users of the Internet.
Absent from the news story was reporting on the reader dissatisfaction with the MSM news reporting of such events as government health care, compulsory wealth redistribution, and the presently unfolding Climategate, scandal.
ARE YOU LISTENING, BBC?
Does anyone believe that if all the internal conversations between scientists working for the coal/oil-lobby were released it would be any better?
So if a few practitioners in a field are caught acting inappropriately, that whole discipline is no longer valid?
I guess we should throw out the stock market, then.
Of course it is a scam. Carbon taxes are designed to destroy the developed world standard of living and redistribute wealth to the poorer nations (after the big boys have filled their pockets).
I laugh at all these greenies, they think their standard of living will continue as it was, but all the little polar bears will be saved. Every newspaper and tv station bombard us with propaganda, the world is falling apart, you lot are causing it. Absolute rubbish, however most people cannot separate fiction from reality.
The children will be the real problem, they are getting brainwashed in school, teachers will teach anything so long as they get the big pay cheque and prestige attached witht he job.
Peer reviewed? I always laughed at this statement, so one bunch of paid off clowns get to review the work of their paid off mates. I tell you something, declare yourself a sceptic and then try and get your hands on any sort of grant.
C.S. Lewis predicted years ago that we would be taken over by a scientific dictatorship. You know those little people in white coats who know it all. Also, I hate these new age people who are all for "science". I prefer some human dignity, mate.
See how the BBC describes Christopher Booker and the Telegraph today:
"The material was taken from servers at the world-renowned research centre before it was published on websites run by climate change sceptics."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/8389727.stm
What is the real reason for all this climate change nonsense?
As usual, the powers that be, the ones behind your Governments, are using them (Govts.) to keep us arguing about petty non-issues like who to vote for in the next election based on “policies” and the "reputation of science". They like us to think we are having our say. And your eyes turn away from the real issues of The New World Order.
Start focussing on the real issues people. The main one being EUGENICS. Destruction of your life styles, education, the economy, poor health, GM crops, poison vaccines, big medicine in general, poor nutrition from big food, the military industrial complex, resource theft, tax theft for banking handouts, the list goes on and on.
This things are planned folks, they are not just mistakes by generations of incompetent politicians, they are acting on orders.
Who are these people and why do they do it?
All you have to do is look here. Information is available about these criminals all over the internet, USE IT AND GET EDUCATED about the origins of these organisations.
The Club of Rome.
The United Nations.
Council on Foreign Affairs
The Trilateral Commission.
Royal Institute of International Affairs.
The Bilderberg Group.
The overwhelming target of these criminal organisations is to reduce the population to 500 million who will serve the elitist few.
Just watch as the news grows on how world population is the issue and needs to be controlled. The environmental movement is the key to their success, and that is why ALL of our politicians support Copenhagen. It is the crime of all time and must be stopped.
Well I just wonder how hundreds or even thousands of scientists all around the world organize their "global conspiracy". The basic data of hundreds of publications have to be organized / manipulated in the same way (Remember, 1993 was the last year when an article that doubts the AGW-Theory, made it into a magazine listed in the Science Citation Index).
How do they "control" publications of more than 8000 magazines that are listed in the SCI?
Conspirative Meetings in the Internet? Letters apread all around the world how to deal with the data? Or even orders spread by alien technology?
And how do these people organize it, that basic data from wether stationa all around the world reflect their theory?
How did they make the sun decline in activity while the temperatures are still rising?
Well, you know the answers I guess.
There appears to be some misunderstanding by a few on the following issue. Thus far only 60mb of information from the East Anglian files have been released and this information is mainly in the e-mail format. However over 100mb (a lot) of these files have yet to be analyzed. Note the word analyzed and this may take the best part of a year to achieve. There is more to come much more.
There appears to be some misunderstanding by a few on the following issue. Thus far only 60mb of information from the East Anglian files have been released and this information is mainly in the e-mail format. However over 100mb (a lot) of these files have yet to be analysed. Note the word analyzed and this may take the best part of a year to achieve. There is more to come much more.
The Guardian today, commenting on the fall of "Professor" Phil Jones concludes with this outrageous quote:
"One leading environmental campaigner said: "It seems like a sensible course of action – finally, the CRU seem to be getting their public response in order. But any reading of the emails in context would lead to the conclusion that nothing untoward happened here at all.""
Nothing untoward happened here?
Only in the mind of a committed warmist.
"Move all. Move along there. Nothing to see.Nothing to see"
The Guardian today, commenting on the fall of "Professor" Phil Jones concludes with this outrageous quote:
"One leading environmental campaigner said: "It seems like a sensible course of action – finally, the CRU seem to be getting their public response in order. But any reading of the emails in context would lead to the conclusion that nothing untoward happened here at all.""
Nothing untoward happened here?
Only in the mind of a committed warmist.
"Move all. Move along there. Nothing to see.Nothing to see"
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Monckton-Caught%20Green-Handed%20Climategate%20Scandal.pdf
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/113009_IISDreport.pdf
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/113009_unepstrategy.pdf
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,577827,00.html
Great news at last:
"Britain's University of East Anglia says the director of its prestigious Climatic Research Unit is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.
The university says Phil Jones will relinquish his position until the completion of an independent review into allegations that he worked to alter the way in which global temperature data was presented."
http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/uk-climate-scientist-to-221080.html
The DT article I referred to can be found at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6701828/Climate-change-sceptics-are-muddled-says-Lord-Stern.html
It seems to have been hidden away already
09:55 2_12_09
Do we now have Sterngate the son of Climategate
I refer the DT piece yesterday on the website and particularly the excellent comments by DennisA and Charles Lee which set out in detail the precise background and interests of Lord Stern.
I note however that the DT website seems to have a new piece this morning providing Lord Stern more publicity, which contrasts directly with the Daily Express FRONT PAGE denouncing man made global warming as a hoax.
Once again the BBC on Radio 4 at approximately 8:15 this morning was peddling the AGW party line.
Perhaps we should all be grateful that the whole topic is finally being properly aired and the many people who have voiced their concerns via the DT comments and the internet, will get a proper hearing.
Ultimately the truth will out. And hopefully Copenhagen and the politicians will be forced to pause and listen.
09:45 2_12_09
John Mason on December 02, 2009 at 06:47 AM
Just who tried to hide the MWP and LIA, climate change of the natural kind? Not sceptics.
"Team" hockey sticks abound for the purpose of hiding climate change but in the real world other studies show that it occurred and was worldwide whereas the "team" deny its temperature range and physical extent.
http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html to access graphs, summaries and reports that tell us that climate change happens through Earth's history contrary to the "teams" rewriting of history.
~~~~
For a round up of Climategate by Monkton including examples of the code "fudge". (some people have fixed bugs in it :) ) try
Monckton has published a ClimateGate guide.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Monckton-Caught%20Green-Handed%20Climategate%20Scandal.pdf
~~~~
This makes for an interesting read and finances in play.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574566124250205490.html
Thus, the European Commission's most recent appropriation for climate research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that's not counting funds from the EU's member governments. In the U.S., the House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA's climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA's, and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. The states also have a piece of the action, with California—apparently not feeling bankrupt enough—devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative. In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal.
And all this is only a fraction of the $94 billion that HSBC Bank estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls "green stimulus"—largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes—of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely.
The scientific/political/economic communities collective heads should be bashed together at the COPENHAGEN summit
so we can agree on solutions to PUT TO AN END the HORRIFYING 0.035% of CO2 which mankind EVILLY adds to the Earths annual carbon flux.Such a STUPENDOUSLY large amount can only be KILLING the planet and YOU,YES YOU are responsible.YOU YOU AND YOU WILL HAVE TO PAY THE PRICE!!!!! YOU can donate directly to one of my green projects.
Just because my personal fortune has increased from $2million to $100 million since 2000 due to my investments in these projects and my partnership in Kleiner Perkins which trades in cap and trade commodities DOES NOT MEAN I HAVE A PERSONAL CONFLICT OF INTERESTS IN THESE AGREEMENTS!!! BOY,HELL NO.NOBEL WINNERS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO LIE AND ARE ABOVE THE LAW!
Signed St.Al of the holy Gore
”There are ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to change and cool dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon. The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are hard-pressed to keep up with it.” – Newsweek, April 28, (1975)
“This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.” – Lowell Ponte “The Cooling” (1976)
“The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population.” – Reid Bryson, Global Ecology (1971)
“The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer.” – Prof. Paul Ehrlich – The Population Bomb (1968)
“In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.” – Prof. Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)
“This cooling trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.” – Peter Gwynne, climatologist, Newsweek (1976)
“If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000…This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.” – Kenneth Watt, Earth Day (1970)
Its always reassuring to know that experts in the field
can accurately predict the coming catastrophes and keep
the public reliably informed.Humbug
As I started writing this, I happened to notice that the number of comments has reached exactly 1215. Perhaps a moment’s reflection on the significance of Magna Carta is in order.
There hasn’t been much comment here on the demise of P Jones, the disgraced former head of CRU at the UEA. The fact of his dismissal was announced last night. Am I alone in thinking that the next step must be the withdrawal of the entire UK delegation from the Copenhagen conference next week? Whatever they have in mind there it will be ‘empty work’ and will mean nothing to those they purport to represent and who pay their expenses.
I read an article on an Australian site this morning that was quoting a set of empirical proofs of global warming . One scientist was saying CO2 is dissolving into the ocean and is forming acid and is destroying reefs . All rather a jump in the logic and all assuming that any damage that is occurring is caused by global warming - not by other factors . For example - did the researcher consider that when he drove over the reef in his speedboat that he was polluting the water and that that pollution was destroying the reefs ?
The Global warming scammers are probably deriving some comfort from the eerie silence about the scandal in mainstream media like the BBC.
They shouldn't.
The internet is now a far more powerful force for the dissemination of information.
It has made life very difficult for liars, fraudsters and conmen and is one of the greatest guarantees of democracy, free speech, liberty and truth.
I know it's an approximation but the atmosphere can be simulated in a laboratory by constructing a large atmospheric chamber with the constituent gases - as occurs in our atmosphere - then measure the heat retention , add some CO2 , and measure again - simple !
I cannot recall a comment receiving so many posts before.
Mostly from sane, thoughtful contributors who have an open mind and are prepared to read and understand the wealth of scientific evidence which gives the lie to the entire MMGW hypothesis.
Rarely has the scientific basis for any phenomenum been so "unsettled" as that for MMGW.
If the political leadership is incapable of addressing these facts then it is undeserving of our respect.
I read today that a ray of sanity exists in the Australian parliament which has thrown out their climate change bill.
Let us hope that Copenhagen is a total failure, as it deserves to be. It will be a fudge whatever happens so that face is saved, if not the planet.
Scott, East Anglia on December 02, 2009 at 06:48 AM :
Very well said !!!
This issue caused the Liberal leader in Australia to lose his post. Comment by Andrew Bolt a journalist. Let's hope all the dominoes will start to fall.. comment below by Herald Sun's
Andrew Bolt – Wednesday, December 02, 09 (07:53 am)
PURE fluke, of course. But the Liberals have voted to stand up at last and fight.
From his very first press conference as the new Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott showed how lucky the Liberals were to somehow pick him in a voting accident.
Abbott, using plain sentences we’d never heard from Malcolm Turnbull, said the Liberals would no longer agree to pass the Rudd Government’s emissions trading scheme. Not now, at least - and almost surely not ever.
Instead, Abbott took this scheme that Turnbull so disastrously backed, and showed how to use it as a weapon not against the divided Liberals - but against the reckless government that had dreamt it up.
You know this ETS, which 80 per cent of voters polled by Galaxy last week said they don’t understand?
They’ll sure understand it now that Abbott is there to explain it to them.
Tell me if Turnbull ever described Kevin Rudd’s scheme to force us off carbon-based power as well as Abbott did yesterday: “This is a $120 billion tax on the Australian public and that is just for starters.
“We have heard from the Independent Pricing Regulator in NSW just yesterday that this ETS would add 30 per cent to the people of NSW’s power bills ...
“What the Rudd Government’s ETS looks like is a great big tax, o create a great big slush fund o provide politicised handouts by a giant bureaucracy.”
And every word true.
The warmists view on life :
"wettest November on record ...
The average temperature was 45F (7.3C), 34.52 F (1.4C) above the long term average for November."
aaahhh !!! it's global warming !!!
"The mild temperatures changed to frost today as temperatures dipped below freezing.
Braemar in Aberdeenshire was the coldest place in the UK last night with temperatures plunging to as low as minus 8.9C (16F).
Benson, in Oxfordshire, registered a low of minus 23F (4.9C) overnight with Chesham, Bucks, registering minus 27F (3C). "
isn't it amazing what one can do with selective reading , a little censorship , a little self delusion , and , no , it doesn't produce economic collapse and social catastrophie , invented reality is real reality
...
until real reality comes around and bites you well and truly on the bum !
We know its a scam, they know we know, but still press on - as someone said earlier, we are going to be taxed for breathing!
PS for a great scientifically proven account, check out Aubrey Manning's Earth Story. The Earth will continue to warm and cool, despite what we are doing and CO2 is the lowest it has been in several millennia.
We are in trouble people - I don't think we have long at all to do something about it. It certainly explains the Climategate silence and AGW propaganda from the media:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/bombshell-un-documents-outline-plan-to-use-climategate-crooks-in-end-run-around-national-sovereignty.html
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/113009_IISDreport.pdf
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/113009_unepstrategy.pdf
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,577827,00.html
No conspiracy then?
Unfortunately when you have people with no principles or ethics pulling a fast one on those with little common sense or education, this will happen.
Common sense would tell anyone that you cannot, with any reliability, see trends in systems that require years of data. Climate changes occur over hundreds, if not thousands of years. How can you see a trend when you have no data to compare? It's like measuring my kids growth at a few points then extrapolating his adult height. I think he is going to be 10 feet tall.
CLIMATEGATE WAS AN INSIDE JOB!
Not surprising. I've known some of these hacks personally or 2nd hand for years. "Don't bother me with facts. Just keep my rice bown filled." That's the mantra of the "elite".
/Research scientist,NASA-Retired
When certain people withhold certain data and refuse to even let others take a look at it - there's something to hide, simple as that.
When that somebody and his colleagues are being paid copious amounts (we're talking Million$$$$$ here) into their bank accounts to please their paymasters, then you can either accept and promote what they say as gospel because it fits your agenda thus rendering yourself just as corrupt.
Wake up people! When lies and deceit are used to get something passed, you can be damn sure that there's something seriously sinister in the package.
If you all want to live in a pumped up on steroids Soviet style society, then give the lies that've been outed the thumbs up. If not, this whole Global Warming Scam must be exposed for the hideous fascistic ideology that it is. Those suits at Copenhagen all know the score - what's a handshake between "fellow travellers"?
look at all those comments, jeez and bbc still sits on its hands, the internet has completly owned this story.
It looks like the warmist political core has been a bit shaken by this page. They always wait for a while in order to have the last word if possible before a page is closed down. However, warm monger postings are coming in thick and fast, indicating unusual agitation. They don't have their usual uppity sang froid. Mind you, it could all be down to a single person or a small group.
Since on this page we have moved on from discussions about thermodynamics and wondering why we must pretend that any so-called greenhouse warming doesn't just exhaust into space since it cannot warm the earth because the air aloft is cooler than the planet, we are left with a simple core issue.
Real evidence does not include fictional positive forcing that only exists in a black box in Norwich or somewhere, or links to alarmist web sites that dodge the issue and answer different questions, often repeating ad nauseum the simplistic version of the greenhouse warming hypothesis which is unproved, but sells well. These concepts are fictions invented to keep the gravy train rolling once it was realised how little effect the uptake by CO2 was actually having.
Real evidence also needs to account for the fluctuations of temperature and CO2 levels that have occurred both in recent times and in the ancient past, including the present and past cessations of warming trends since the 17th century.
Such real evidence would be independent of any fiddling of temperature figures for propaganda purposes that we have known was going on but no-one outside the clique could prove until now. Correlation is not causation, and temperature data, fiddled or not, does not tell us anything about its cause, either way. Finagling is therefore a secondary issue, but important in terms of the legal implications for the violinists.
The killer point that matters is that no-one can provide any real evidence that AGW is more than insignificant, or of extra greenhouse warming in the atmosphere. Period. I challenge anyone to find any. The warm mongers cannot get round it, and conceal this gaping hole in their case with a welter of camouflage and propaganda.
There is a deafening silence about those two points from the warm mongering unsceptics. If such evidence existed then it would have been trumpeted from the rooftops long since and we could all go home. It is incredible that they have been able to spin this deception out for so long.
Mind you if anyone could come up with just a teensy weensy bit of real evidence I would be happy to be proved wrong. There would be riches, and a Nobel prize awaiting the first person to produce such evidence. Note - the first person to do it, hence no Nobel prize yet.
Since there is no significant AGW, rolling back our industrialisation would have a negligible impact on the climate, cost trillions, and lead to the death of millions if not billions of people who are dependent on our current energy input. This sounds like criminal behaviour to me.
Meanwhile the political bandwagon rolls on with slightly wet trousers in case the public at large realise the truth in time to derail the Copenhagen conference and its megalomaniac agenda.
AlGore's convenient lie: "Mann-made" global warming.
Thank you for continuing to publish reports of scientific skullduggery and buffoonery. Exposing these clowns is in the best interest of the taxpaying public.
Next, are you able to expose their political masters? Again, the public is in need of this information.
Cheers...
These "scientists" can't even imagine that we might still be living in the Pleistocene. Temperatures have been rising for 12,000 years since the last glacier backed out of my location. Rome in North Africa.... deserts growing long before the Industrial Revolution... Historians are brighter than this Global Warming bunch... They are trying to save their bloated, hysterical Global Warming grants. They are political agenda driven. They believe as fervently as "end of the worlders" that they are right and, when confronted by jiggered figures or disconfirming evidence, they will dig in and assert even more firmly that they are right.
(Festinger "When Prophecy Fails" Harper Torchbooks.) Hey, "scientists"... try to figure out a way to end one billion cooking fires in SE Asia alone. Invent something. Do some good. You look like crazy people in white robes carrying "End of the World" signs and gathering on a mountain top to witness it.
If you want to see a conspiracy in action, just watch the BBC reporting on the run up to Copenhagen - an interview with Sting and criticism of his carbon footprint was as far as it went.
It seems that the mainstream media and the people they select to interview are agreed that "Climategate" shall never be mentioned.
True or false, the issue is before us. No previous issue in recent history has the same relevance yet it is not discussed. Warmist or denier, surely this issue should be out in the open?
Warmists should recognise it is thee and be doing their best to shoot it down and deniers should be trying their best to shoot them down.
But this is a taboo subject - as if only 20 or 20 people worldwide have access to the internet - but this "state of denial" (that Climategate exists) may well prove a watershed for the media.
This is the point at which people will realise that to see all the information, good bad or indifferent, it isn't the BBC, it isn't CBN or Sky, It isn't the Telegraph that you need visit but the internet.
The second most significant facet is that it is plain that not only will the politicians not discuss it, the pundits suggest that even if Climategate were proved to be true it won't affect Copenhagen.
Get that? a whole tranche of legislation will go ahead anyway... they hope. The fact that the sole justification for this is global warming they thin that if that cause is knocked away I won't matter.
Frankly I find that far more alarming than a bunch of scientists being "economical with the truth".
The biggest threat to the planet isn't global warming, even if it were true, but global government, non-democratic, unelected and unaccountable.
History will record Christopher Booker as either right or wrong, and it will equally either be a benign judge or a harsh one.
It would be fun to have a Time Machine as in the excellent H.G. Wells novel!
In the absence of that - if Christopher is wrong - which is of course possible, how do we see him dealing with the consequences?
Readers of books but denialists of climate change might be interested in this tome: Google "Climate Cover-up". Read it and find out how utterly you have been had over. They have been extracting the Michael out of you for years and years. Over and out!
John
What is the motive for associating global warming with CO2 without any clear scientific support? Who gets to benefit from all these?
Maybe Phil Jones et al should pop along to http://www.ehow.com/how_5088688_record-science-lab-notebook.html
1170 comments so far! That in itself deserves praise C.B.!
The one think many people do not know is that Steve McIntyre, took a year off from working for a living to enable him to bust the codes with help from Ross McKitrick.
When all the dust settles and the UEA crew disappear with what little credibility they had, evaporated in to the atmosphere, maybe we should all donate a little for S.K.'s devotion. (and also a little to the wonderful person that got the emails out. Timed to perfection sir/madam!)
Dr Albert Gortenbull @ 10.11 pm nicely sums up why there are 1000 plus deluded folk here.
People believe what they have been predisposed to believe, and/or want to believe for their own comfort.
This is made use of by the skilled journalists determined to make profits out of the Coolists by selling books and coaxing folk onto web pages.
But we are still waiting for any fact from the stolen e-mails that will alter the present world temperature trend data sets.
That no "corrected" trends have been produced tells me that none of the 1000 plus Coolist believers has managed to change the science one iota.
95% of the world believes there is a supreme being or GOD. By consensus then there is a GOD.
The AGW narrative won't die easily.I fully expect to see a fresh wave of climatic scare mongering from the AGW community and their allies in the MSM.
This is a very interesting article and I'm not denying anything that has been said. I do, though, want to know the explanation for the change of weather (not warming, but change). This is the first November in recorded history, where I live, that there hasn't been any snow. We were walking around in sweaters and summerwear up until about a week ago. The tulips and daffodils have started to sprout out of the ground. It is December 1; this shouldn't be happening now in Canada.
All, as an American, I can tell you that Al Gore is and has always been a sanctimonious phony. This farce of a "crisis" has been a perfect platform for people of his ilk, determined to derive power (read: $) to use fear as opposed to science to drive their agenda.
Recent events have already demonstrated just how absurd and meaningless the Nobel Peace Prize is. Al and Barack, together, they con! We have no true leadership anymore. I fear for our republic.
Fight back. Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.
Jim Hobson on December 01, 2009 at 09:14 PM:
"There is one simple fact that the global warming, CO2 crowd does not want to discuss. The largest producer of CO2 on the planet is the ocean. And it produces over 90% of the world's CO2."
And that wasn't a problem until we came along and started short-circuiting the carbon cycle by digging up coal and oil. For large swathes of the Earth's history those large sources of CO2 were in balance with the various sinks. They aren't any more.
"Another simple fact is that increases in CO2 have not preceded warming periods. Warming has historically occurred prior to increases in CO2."
CO2 is not the only driver of climate changes. In the past it has amplified warming initiated by other mechanisms, such as changes in the orbital configuration between the Earth and Sun. Today, it is the primary forcing on the changes we are observing.
I can thoroughly recommend this excellent history of the discovery of global warming on the American Institute of Physics Web site: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm
The climate sceptic idea seems to be that scientists have spent decades deliberately falsifying data, just so that they can get more grants to falsify more data.
This is a clearly stupid theory, and anyone with any common sense would reject it.
Some people have a major financial interest in prolonging the supposed controversy about climate change. These include carbon intensive industries and some journalists and authors.
Think for a minute who has the most to gain by misrepresenting the data
fishshocker
Easy. The new green industry and the tax collectors.If you chose to worship at the alter of MMGW that's your prerogative. But don't impose your religion on the non believers and skeptics.It's more than obvious the data has been manipulated to reach a pre-conceived outcome.Many well know scientist have been warning for over a decade not to jump to conclusions.They manipulated the data, and dis credited anyone who didn't agree, those are the facts. You can't reach a consensus unless you have both sides of the argument.To deny that this has been a one sided argument is disingenuous.
Why do all articles related to global warming show photos of plumes of water vapor? CO2 is a colorless gas at normal temperatures and pressures.And by the way a good-thing for the environment. It promotes "green" plant growth.
CO2=Green
WE ARE FINALY GOING TO BE TAXED FOR BREATHING!
Couldn't have said it better myself. The emperor has no clothes. Climate change as a catalyst for global redistributionism is dead. The fabian "green" movement must now find another mule to flog.
Having just read George "MonBigots" pack of cards article in the Guardian, has left me with a feeling of acute nausea. I have tried to make a protest comment, but the Guardian is not allowing posts on this article (which says it all)
To descend below the sewage level of gutter press on such a vital issue, has destroyed my short-lived respect for the man, after his article condemning the activities of the CRU. It is both regrettable and deplorable.
Firstly, if a scientist cannot provide the raw supporting data for his publication, his credibility becomes very low. Secondlyl, if he explains himself by saying he discarded the data, then his credibility becomes less than zero. No credible scientist would ever discard raw data pertaining to any of his work. Especially work that carries this kind of significance and importance to others. The whole premise of the EAU scientists responses is ludicrous; anyone who accepts it would marginalize their own credibility as a reasonable person. Overall, the situation is ridiculous and criminal. For the legal system to retain credibility people need to go to jail.
Who ever heard of any credible scientist "dumping" or discarding their raw data which supports their publications. That is a patently ridiculous proposition and the only reason to do so is to hide improprieties. Anyone who gives and ear to such stupid utterences clearly casts their own credibility into doubt. Discarding raw data for research that has such important consequences elevates it to criminal action. However, politics being what it is, accountability will be far-fetched.
Once again, consensus is NOT science. Any number of dimwits can say something is true, and it can be horribly wrong. In the end, our paltry attempts to draw conclusions about a truly complex system based on a mere two hundred years of data is simply irresponsible and nothing but conjecture in the end. What an abysmal waste of time and effort.
Good - found the four separate independent data sets superimposed on top of one another:-
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/more-on-the-climate-files-and-climate-trends/
"Trends in global temperature estimated by four different research groups are very similar, both in charting pronounced warming and a lot of short-term variability. The groups are the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA, Britain’s Hadley Center and Climatic Research Unit (Univ. of East Anglia) and Japan’s meteorological agency."
So even if you ignored the alleged data massaging or even turned it upside down it would be soooo obvious.
Scandal? Scandal? What scandal?
In 1912 the discovery of the "Missing Link" was announced. However, in 1953, as all the world now knows, the famous Piltdown skull was conclusively determined to be a fraud. To modern science, it may seem incredible that the Piltdown "Ape Man" was accepted in 1912 by people who should have seen at once that such an evolutionary freak was impossible - but at that time the evolutionists were expecting the discovery of just such an apparent link between man and ape. Charles Darwin had forecast in 1871 that the missing Link would one day be found. The acceptance of Piltdown Man was largely wishful thinking in 1912. The scientists accepted him as genuine because they wished to believe. They were too credulous.
The Piltdown fraud which consumed science for 41 years should remind us that Global Warming hypothesis must be based on sound science - not on incomplete computer models and the rantings of a a modern-day Piltdown man, Al Gore. Albert
fishshocker on December 01, 2009 at 05:02 PM
"Think for a minute who has the most to gain by misrepresenting the data"
I'm with Catweazle!
http://www.copenhagenclimatecouncil.com/get-informed/news/business-call-outlines-six-steps-for-ambitious-global-climate-treaty.html
Global business leaders assembled in Copenhagen at the World Business Summit on Climate Change today issued "The Copenhagen Call," a powerful and concise statement that sets out the elements business believes are required to forge an effective new global climate treaty.*
The Copenhagen Call
(729.0 kb)
Global business leaders assembled in Copenhagen today called for ambitious, global action on climate change.
As the World Business Summit on Climate Change drew to a close, business announced that a new global climate treaty must set bold targets for emissions reductions by 2020 and 2050, limiting the global average rise in temperature to a maximum of 2°C compared to pre-industrial levels. This requires immediate and substantial action leading to an abatement of around 17Gt versus business-as-usual by 2020, they said.
Emissions reduction at this scale will profoundly affect business but the "Call" states that business leaders stand ready to make those changes and support ambitious political decisions that support economic recovery and safeguard the planet.
This and further recommendations form the basis of "The Copenhagen Call" – a concise statement, which sets out the elements business believes are required for an effective new global climate treaty to be forged.
"The ambition of the Copenhagen Call shows that business need not be a conservative voice on climate change. Many of the businesses represented at this significant event in the lead up to COP15 want brave decisions that will tackle this most wicked of problems," says Tim Flannery, Chair of the Copenhagen Climate Council.
Presented to the Danish Prime Minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, and Yvo de Boer, the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, the Copenhagen Call will be taken forward by them in to the last six months of negotiations before the UN Climate Change Conference (COP15) in December.
"Economic recovery and urgent action to tackle climate change are complementary – boosting the economy and jobs through investment in the new infrastructure needed to reduce emissions," the Call further states.
Erik Rasmussen, Founder of the Copenhagen Climate Council, explains: "Reducing the emissions that until now have been so linked to our economic growth and betterment will be an enormous, unprecedented global challenge but will also provide significant opportunities for sustainable growth, green jobs, development and innovation."
In order to set a firm foundation for a sustainable economic future it is imperative that the following six steps are implemented:
1. Agreement on a science-based greenhouse gas stabilization path with 2020 and 2050 emissions reduction targets that will achieve it;
2. Effective measurement, reporting and verification of emissions performance by business;
3. Incentives for a dramatic increase in financing low emissions technologies;
4. Deployment of existing low-emissions technologies and the development of new ones;
5. Funds to make communities more resilient and able to adapt to the effects of climate change, and
6. Means to finance forest protection.
Presented by the Copenhagen Climate Council, the Copenhagen Call was informed by discussion with the World Business Council on Sustainable Development; 3C; the World Economic Forum; the UN Global Compact and The Climate Group, and deliberations among participants at the World Business Summit on Climate Change May 24-26 2009.
Whilst politicians and many scientists are so absorbed in worrying about carbon emissions, the real environmental disaster is streaking in under the radar - the six million extra humans we are adding to the planet every month.
The "green" agenda is really just a big moneymaking scheme for those people invested in green technologies and especially carbon offsets (the latter having little or no oversight). With the amounts of money involved and the media on their side, it's not surprising that scientists have been suppressing information - they stand to lose their reputations and millions or billions of dollars of grant money.
In point of fact, temperature fluctuations happened before world industrialization, and have nothing to do with humans. This is all a big hoax designed to scare us into submission, just like H1N1 (less lethal than regular flu) or terrorism (many of the recent "terrorist" attacks in the US and Europe have been manufactured). Keep people scared and they will do what you want.
Given, I do support subsidizing energy research - but not destroying our industry with carbon caps that DON'T EVEN REDUCE WORLD EMISSIONS. You see, if our industry has extra costs and plants in, say, China don't, then China's goods will cost less and everyone buys them instead - thus shifting production to a country that produces more emissions. Overall, you gain emissions rather than reducing them. The only way to reduce emissions across the board - if you believe that this is important (which I don't) - is to research technologies that REDUCE COSTS at the same time as reducing emissions. This way countries that don't follow your example are at a disadvantage rather than an advantage.
But really, it's all a scam. Human-produced carbon dioxide is not causing the warming.
I have been following this debate now for over two days. Some excellent comments have been made but we mostly seem to be pushing against an open door. The consensus is clear. We are in the main preaching to the converted. What can we do, in practice, to get these views to the wider audience? It can't be done by writing to newspapers; they won't print them, and anyway the odd letter or two will make no difference. There is no chance that any of the media will hold an open debate on the subject, and if they did it would contain carefully selected 'opposing views'. To my mind the only way would be through a series of full page adverts in all the national papers. No bullshit and confusing numbers just lists of facts and repudiations of the AGW case that the 'man in the street' can understand. Tell him how much it will cost him if all the Copenhagen targets are to be met. It should not be too difficult for someone with the right experience to organise this. Form an organisation, get Christopher to publicise it in his cloumn, charge a fee for membership to pay for the ads and get some of the talented contributers to this site to write them. It could be done. Any views?
this whole mess had made me wonder about all the evolutionist emails we have'nt seen. just a thought..............
Mike Donald on December 01, 2009 at 08:05 PM
"I'm looking for that link that shows that there are four separate climate data gathering agencies."
Pssst, Mike. I've got an even better link. This one has all the publicly available climate data sources, raw AND processed data, model codes, reconstructions, plus links to the main master repositories of climate data. But you absolutely must keep it a secret and not share it with any "sceptics" in case they examine it closely and expose our great conspiracy.
Ssshhhh.... http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
Catweazle again has been trying to fool the readers here in his comments about the NW Passage.
He reports that a ship sailed through in the mid 20th century, as though it didn`t get blocked by ice then.
He doesn`t tell us that this ship was a special boat designed to withstand being frozen-in, which did happen and resulted in the voyage taking two years.
But the gullible readers here who lap up every falsehood will be happy with another "fact" to back up their hopes.
Ideas like that the East Anglia Unit lost or destroyed data sets [but we never hear which climate stations or countries have lost their past climate records!]
It`s like the BBC film clip of "protesters" in a GM crop wearing white protective clothing to ensure they aren`t poisoned.
The filmmakers knew there was no danger, the dressed-up students knew there was no danger, the BBC programme-makers in repeatedly running the film clip knew that nobody had been in danger and it was just a stunt.
But the majority of the UK population was made to believe that GM crops are universally poisonous.
So I do agree with a previous comment on my messages that a few rash words can sometimes change the course of history.
London (Associated Press)Britain's University of East Anglia says the director of its prestigious Climatic Research Unit is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.
As an engineer and scientist, I am outraged at the massive fraud people are trying to perpetuate to transfer wealth from those who are industrious to those who always have their hand out not wishing to work for a living.
The BNP chairman, Nick Griffin, for many months now has been the only political party leader speaking out against man-made global warming, and for this he has, as usual, been strongly vilified by the major parties and the mainstream media.
Ironic, isn't it, that we now see he was right after all?
How can this be “the final nail in the coffin of the [AGW] coffin?” Since when has the work of the CRU been so foundational to the AGW consensus? What a lot of overblown, hyperbolic nonsense! Did the Piltdown Man hoax topple the whole edifice of evolutionary biology? Does any isolated example of bad science ever discredit the entire field?
Nobody with any serious grasp of the facts will be duped by this ridiculous smear campaign. It has taken nearly a century for consensus to form, and there is now a vast body of highly scrutinized research. For all this evidence to be undermined, you would have to discredit tens of thousands of scientists, and hundreds of thousands of studies and papers! Just how do a few poorly-worded emails among one small group of scientists come even remotely close to doing that?
How, for example, does this incident cast doubt on the findings from satellite data, radiosondes, borehole analysis, glacial melt observations, sea ice melt, sea level rise, proxy reconstructions, permafrost melt and such like, gathered completely independently of the CRU?
How does it in any way throw doubt on the integrity of the many other, independent scientific bodies who support the AGW consensus? Here is a list of just a few of them:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of SciencesAcademié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
"Even if the average global temperature increases by only 2C — the target set for next week’s Copenhagen summit — sea levels could still rise by 50cm, double previous forecasts, according to the report...SCAR, a partnership of 35 of the world’s leading climate research institutions, made the prediction in the report Antarctic Climate Change and Climate..."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6938356.ece
You people need a serious reality check!
Regards,
P.
"The climate sceptic idea seems to be that scientists have spent decades deliberately falsifying data, just so that they can get more grants to falsify more data.
This is a clearly stupid theory, and anyone with any common sense would reject it.
Some people have a major financial interest in prolonging the supposed controversy about climate change. These include carbon intensive industries and some journalists and authors.
Think for a minute who has the most to gain by misrepresenting the data"
fishshocker
on December 01, 2009
at 05:02 PM
I absolutely agree, it is absurd to stop at blaming the scientists.
Coca-Cola Pepsi? GM, Ford, Chrysler? DuPont, Dow Chemical? BP, Shell, Alcoa, Rio Tinto, Alstom, Alcoa, PG&E? All of these are in support of the Copenhagen conference and climate legislation such as Cap-and-Trade...or Goldman Sachs?
Global business leaders assembled in Copenhagen at the World Business Summit on Climate Change today issued "The Copenhagen Call," a powerful and concise statement that sets out the elements business believes are required to forge an effective new global climate treaty.*
The Copenhagen Call
(729.0 kb)
Global business leaders assembled in Copenhagen today called for ambitious, global action on climate change.
As the World Business Summit on Climate Change drew to a close, business announced that a new global climate treaty must set bold targets for emissions reductions by 2020 and 2050, limiting the global average rise in temperature to a maximum of 2°C compared to pre-industrial levels. This requires immediate and substantial action leading to an abatement of around 17Gt versus business-as-usual by 2020, they said.
Emissions reduction at this scale will profoundly affect business but the "Call" states that business leaders stand ready to make those changes and support ambitious political decisions that support economic recovery and safeguard the planet.
This and further recommendations form the basis of "The Copenhagen Call" – a concise statement, which sets out the elements business believes are required for an effective new global climate treaty to be forged.
"The ambition of the Copenhagen Call shows that business need not be a conservative voice on climate change. Many of the businesses represented at this significant event in the lead up to COP15 want brave decisions that will tackle this most wicked of problems," says Tim Flannery, Chair of the Copenhagen Climate Council.
Presented to the Danish Prime Minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, and Yvo de Boer, the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, the Copenhagen Call will be taken forward by them in to the last six months of negotiations before the UN Climate Change Conference (COP15) in December.
"Economic recovery and urgent action to tackle climate change are complementary – boosting the economy and jobs through investment in the new infrastructure needed to reduce emissions," the Call further states.
Erik Rasmussen, Founder of the Copenhagen Climate Council, explains: "Reducing the emissions that until now have been so linked to our economic growth and betterment will be an enormous, unprecedented global challenge but will also provide significant opportunities for sustainable growth, green jobs, development and innovation."
In order to set a firm foundation for a sustainable economic future it is imperative that the following six steps are implemented:
1. Agreement on a science-based greenhouse gas stabilization path with 2020 and 2050 emissions reduction targets that will achieve it;
2. Effective measurement, reporting and verification of emissions performance by business;
3. Incentives for a dramatic increase in financing low emissions technologies;
4. Deployment of existing low-emissions technologies and the development of new ones;
5. Funds to make communities more resilient and able to adapt to the effects of climate change, and
6. Means to finance forest protection.
Presented by the Copenhagen Climate Council, the Copenhagen Call was informed by discussion with the World Business Council on Sustainable Development; 3C; the World Economic Forum; the UN Global Compact and The Climate Group, and deliberations among participants at the World Business Summit on Climate Change May 24-26 2009.
http://www.copenhagenclimatecouncil.com/get-informed/news/business-call-outlines-six-steps-for-ambitious-global-climate-treaty.html
There is one simple fact that the global warming, CO2 crowd does not want to discuss.
The largest producer of CO2 on the planet is the ocean. And it produces over 90% of the world's CO2.
Another simple fact is that increases in CO2 have not preceded warming periods. Warming has historically occurred prior to increases in CO2.
A fraud is a fraud.
What a bunch of uneducated people. If you really think there is "dirt" in those emails, you are very deluded. Go chase UFOs and JFK conspiracies or get a grip on reality. People are so easily amused and entertained I guess. Christopher: you sir, are part of the problem. You claim hiding of data, but have you yourself tried to gain access to that data and come up short? I suspect no, because the data ISN'T hidden...it's in plain sight for all who want it. Ever asked any of the climate scientists for their "code" and been denied? Of course not, because it's shared freely. Until you can run the numbers and prove to the world a diabolical scandal, I suggest you engage in reporting things you have a reasonable amount of proof of.
Tom (December 01, 2009 at 01:10 PM)
You give various arguments to claim that action on MMGW is beneficial, so it doesn't matter whether or not MMGW is true.
I hope you will come to apprecaite how bad your argument is.
It is morally wrong to invent a bogeyman to try to scare people into doing things.
It usually comes to a bad end as people eventually come to learn the truth, and then it is "payback time".
The whole MMGW thing has been sold as "science". There is no way to justify or excuse the tainting science with this kind of cheap con trick.
If you squander scientific reputation on false claims of a big bad climate bogeyman, exactly what response do you expect from the public when we ar faced with a REAL issue?
You might see other benefits from taking action againt MMGW, but you conveniently overlook the drawbacks. For example, squandering vast amounts of our precious energy resources burying CO2 for no good reason.
There is no place of inventing bogeymen has no place in scientific principles and practice.
Fine, if you want to believe in climate change, why not try life without the benefits of fossil fuels. You would immediately knock 30 years of your life expectaancy, you'd be lucky to meet your grandchilderen. And the first thing you would do in the morning would be to chop down the local greenery just to keep yourself warm. Breathing toxins as you burned it.
And you want to call people around here idiots.
This is a most sad day for science and all scientists. This will go down as the most unethical behaviour in the history of science. If the full scope of the waste and damage done to the credibility to all scientists and about to happen to the financial world were to be fully known, the streets would be filled with rioters hell bent on punishing all of those responsible. Unfortunately our young children and older students have had their brains filled with mush about global warming, climate change, AGW, or whatever the climate changers are making up these days. Unfortunately the damage done to date cannot be reversed, even if the so-called main stream media were to come clean and publish the truth. The financial damage yet to be done cannot be determined.
So much damage has been done to real scientists by these Charlatans in so many ways that it seems that if seems that no punishment and shame would seem to be sufficient. It a further shame that so much valuable raw data has been lost or compromised. Professor Phil Jones and his minions are spread so far and wide, who is left to believe in the area of truthful climate research? They have shown themselves as untrustworthy, and if not fired from their positions, certainly should never receive one more penny of taxpayers funds.
I am a long since retired professional Metrologist with over thirty years experience in the field of Metrology. A few years of it in the area of Air Pollution. Metrology is the science of measurement. It is in no way related to Meteorology except for the exacting science of measurement of parameters such as temperature, humidity, volts, amperes, resistance, and the entire gamut of engineering, Physicall, and scientific parameters. I am somewhat ashamed that I have not spoken out by now on my suspicions that there was no credible way that the Climatologists could in a coordinated and scientific manner be measuring temperatures all over the world for tens of decades. I did not see how that they could claim the low level of measurement uncertainty that would have to be in place in order for them to make their claims of accuracy (low uncertainty)related to global warming.
In order for a Metrologist to make a claim of a given accuracy in a Standards Laboratory, a mathematically rigid statistical analysis has to be made of all of the sources of uncertainty associated with that particular measurement parameter such as amperes, resistance, temperature, etc. I have never followed the AGW Meteorologists very closely, but I have never seen such an analysis. Nor have I seen measurement audits of weather stations that is typical of commercial and military standards laboratories. I could say the same thing about the medical field (except for X-Rays), but I will stay out of that argument. This is a sad day for all of science.
BIGM3
Well, after reading this very long and lively comment thread I am still none the wiser.
Can someone please explain precisely which aspects of science now need to be rewritten as a result of the stolen CRU e-mails? Which scientific papers are now invalidated and why? What data is now shown to be inaccurate and how? Which aspects of our potential impact on the environment do we now need to re-evaluate as a result of these snippets of e-mail conversations?
Michael Mann in his own words...
http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/4651
Seems straightforward to me. There's nothing like asking the source itself instead of trying to understand it via Booker!
I'm looking for that link that shows that there are four separate climate data gathering agencies.
Now if we remove any one of them guess what? Go on - guess!
Comrades: Our diligent climate workers at the PCRU (Peoples Climate Re-education Unit) have toiled long and hard to create the correct progressive answer to climate change. Namely, the globe is warming and clunkers caused it. And of course Bush caused it too. This conclusion is truly deep and beyond questioning by outsiders.
This work is so deep that authoritative sources have disclosed that the Swedish Politburo will award a newly created Nobel Prize in climate change to our glorious workers at PCRU for their truly imaginative work on adjusting climate to meet the needs of governments.
But now, Comrades, hate criminals are attacking our brave climate workers at the PCRU. We need to support our dear leaders as they defend PCRU and attack these deniers, these enemies of the people.
When all this is settled our progressive management will have special shovel-ready green jobs (near the polar bears) for all thought criminals. The jobs will have special benefits including access to PUGHC (Peoples Universal Global Health Care). This includes access to PPUGHC, the Psychological division of PUGHC, for rigorous sensitivity training in how to survive on a cool planet.
1) Science is NOT based on consensus, but rather on verifiability.
2) AGW theory is complex and uses data that is in dispute with methods and models that are also in dispute.
3) Therefore, there is no consensus.
5) Those who say that AGW is settled science are liars.
Lord Stern is cranking up the Fear Factor, I see, this evening. Must be terrible, having to watch your gravy train heading over a cliff instead of making you even more rich and powerful.
In todays world it seems you can buy anything if you have enough money.
You can buy stooges and yes men, you can buy power and people, you can buy governments and even nations.
If you have enough money you can buy universities and institutions who will supply you with fake doctorates and fake prizes.
Money money money everyone is for sale and everyone wants money, you can buy scientific reports that prove black is white, lawyers and politicians can be bought to protect you from prosecution.
The only things you cannot buy is a clean soul and conscience, you cannot buy real love, you cannot buy honour and integrity, you cannot buy honesty and you cannot buy the truth.
Shame and dishonour will follow the fraudsters from this life to the next, there are no pockets in a shroud and you cannot buy off the eternal judge at your lifes end!
I am posting this mostly to send a copy to my daughter, who has accused me of being a "global warming denier" since the late nineties.
It is not time for the torches and pitchforks, dear villagers. This Frankenstein's monster is merely a symptom of the corruption; it is not the infected core. The great human passion for single cause determinism, the "which leader is to blame" syndrome, is the evil to be confronted by each of us, personally, privately, in our mirrors. This muckraking article does us no great service. Villifying the anointed ones solves no problems; merely repeats the Oedipus, Christ, Caesar, Attila, Hitler, etc. myths.
While the IPCC drivel has been sopped up by politicians, much good climate science has been published in the
U.S. "Publications of the National Academy of Science." Most of this work has indicated that climate is not as simple as we would like, and most of it has been published since 2000.
Conspiracy should not be a source of amazement. Whenever weak men gather together to overcome problems larger than any one of them, the product of their defective efforts is by definition "conspiracy." It is thus no surprise that Al Gore should be joined with Henry Kissinger, Yassir Arafat, and now Barak Obama in receiving the "Nobel Peace Prize," while men like Ghandi are denied. I sometimes wonder, will Obama's prize be rescinded, should he actually do something of value to humanity?
Enough of the political progeny of our desperate need for single cause determinism. The cornerstone of all science, mathematics, has failed us. But then one cornerstone does not a building make, any more than a one trick pony makes a parade.
The entire scientific edifice is built on Euclidean and
Pythagorean Geometry, and we will allow no other. Descartes showed us how to reduce the Arab's algebra to our beloived Pythagorean geometry. Newton's calculus is merely a shortcut to Archimedes method of exhaustion. Reimanian and Lobachevskian geometries do no more than twist Euclid. Even Einstein's "Relativity" is not much more than application of the rubber-ruler to Pythagoras. I freely admit that my eee-tiny brain is overchallenged when Poincare identifies the ways these geometries are the same. And I merely get dizzy when Mendelbrot sets replicate patterns which occur in the real world.
The problem with the Euclid, Pythagoras, Newton, Einstein explanation is that it is confined to "two body problems." As soon as a third variable is introduced, the whole edifice turns to chaos. Mendelbrot demonstrated that, even if you cannot identify the third body, chaos is as inevitable as the existence of the unidentified third body, and as soon as the possibility of a fourth, fifth.....infiniteth variable is allowed, then the mess boils down to stochastic pea soup.
And so, fellow villagers, I maintain that it is not time for pitchforks and torches. There are some who struggle to do good scientific work, in spite of the obstructions placed in their path by the mathematics community.
Harry Cole on December 01, 2009 at 06:05 PM
There are quite a few earlier posts by others drawing attention to the now apparent lack of role for CFCs versus the Ozone hole. In passing I have read that CFC impact is likely over estimated by an order of a couple of magnitudes. I do not have his name to hand but a scientist did receive a science Nobel in about 2007 for his work in this area but not mentioned in MSM dispatches. :)
The link that I mentioned earlier is to a paper that discusses the role of Galactic Cosmic Rays and the role of the Solar cycle in varying the GCR count reaching Earth.
~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~qblu/Lu-2009PRL.pdf
Correlation between Cosmic Rays and Ozone Depletion
Q.-B. Lu
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada
(Received 7 August 2008; published 19 March 2009)
This Letter reports reliable satellite data in the period of 1980–2007 covering two full 11-yr cosmic ray
(CR) cycles, clearly showing the correlation between CRs and ozone depletion, especially the polar ozone
loss (hole) over Antarctica. The results provide strong evidence of the physical mechanism that the CR-
driven electron-induced reaction of halogenated molecules plays the dominant role in causing the ozone
hole. Moreover, this mechanism predicts one of the severest ozone losses in 2008–2009 and probably
another large hole around 2019–2020, according to the 11-yr CR cycle.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Such research has suggested to some that the Montreal Protocol resulted in the replacement of an inert gas with a more volatile and less efficient replacement. One that is now slated for banning and replacement.
This weeks scare story about the Antarctic where the authors admit it is cooling but say that should the Ozone hole shut as a result of the Montreal Protocol then drowning is obligatory. Yet the hole remains similar sized as they well know and either they are blinkered to the last decades research or...
Gives the media another Copenhagen scare story I suppose.
Isn't funny how the solar activity over the past 2 decades tracks right alongside the earth's temps, and Mars too? You'd almost think they are related but the AGW scientists say there is no correlation so too bad there is no actual affect from the Sun. /S
Whoops! The wrong data was released. See who's feeling warm now.
But the warmbacks are still after the greenbacks, so they won't easily be dissuaded from evangelizing the world with their Gospel of Warmth. To save the world, we and our children's children will have to give until it hurts.
The BBC 6.00pm News had an item about "global warming", focussing on Antarctica.
The temperature is rising down there, according to the talking head, and we are in danger of rising sea levels due to the colossal ice melt that will take place.
Now, if there's one place on the planet where we KNOW beyond the smallest shadow of a doubt that the ice is getting thicker it's Antarctica.
"Wingham et al. report that "overall, the data, corrected for isostatic rebound, show the ice sheet growing at 5 ± 1 mm year-1." To calculate the ice sheet's change in mass, however, "requires knowledge of the density at which the volume changes have occurred," and when the researchers' best estimates of regional differences in this parameter are used, they find that "72% of the Antarctic ice sheet is gaining 27 ± 29 Gt year-1, a sink of ocean mass sufficient to lower global sea levels by 0.08 mm year-1." This net extraction of water from the global ocean, according to Wingham et al., occurs because "mass gains from accumulating snow, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and within East Antarctica, exceed the ice dynamic mass loss from West Antarctica.""
This interesting report came out in 2006.
The planet cooled the following year, and in 2008.
The BBC is guilty of ignorant reporting, peddling alarmist information that is totally unsupported by scientific evidence.
This is the best spin that can be put on tonight's new story.
I wouldn't want to suggest that the various Tristrams and Jeremys who control BBC News have a warmist agenda all of their own, would I?
Not picking on you but... :)
David Welch on December 01, 2009 at 02:40 PM
"a vicious campaign to destroy science, medicine"
Having worked in the development of medical equipment I would say the contrary, this episode underwrites a concerns of research/prototype software getting into mainstream products. To this end, there are many hurdles to step over to get certification before life critical products can be used for the public and quite rightly so. Such as we are seeing here demonstrates the importance of robust and provable procedures when handling data, be it say body scan data processing or policy making climate data processing. What we see in the revealed procedures and practice is blatantly unacceptable especially considering how much money is going into these organisations but it seems from the emails most of what they do is develop their carbon footprints. In the real world discovery of such poor practice would result in the cessation of product certification and probably legal ramifications.
David Welch on December 01, 2009 at 01:56 PM
"The 900 posters here have obviously not considered that this e-mail was written in 1999, and if a decline in temperature had been hidden [which of course it wasn`t longterm] then that would have made the case for global warming all the stronger.
I.e. causing lowered temperatures before 1999, which would exaggerate the present warming."
This is a reference to a decline in a Proxy Temperature series evident post 1960! Ergo, it did not match the instrument record therefore if not hidden could be used to invalid the entire series and its usefulness in the hiding of the LIA and MWP thus making current climate change look exceptional.
http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html for examples of MWP across the globe.
Don't confuse the Sunday Telegraph with the Daily Telegraph. Chris Booker writes for the ST and as an independant voice. The DT has consistently put out scare stories about global warming for years. I have a file stuffed with them. They include stmpeding walruses trampling each other to death as their habitat is lost due to CG.The wiping out of the white possum in Oz. Moths migrating to the UK from Africa for the first time to look for cooler climes. British earthworms fighting for survival as European (sic) invaders infiltrate their habitat. 17,921 species on the brink of extinction with CG being the main culprit. In yesterday's DT - "Zoo chiefs fear mass extiction of wild life... unless world leaders can halt climate change" and "Floods and droughts caused by climate change could kill 400,000 children each year in the future". Also there is a report that the medical profession has jumped on the 'Gimmee a share of the loot' bandwaggon by forming a Climate and Health Council as it says climate change "threatens to radically undermine the health of all peoples." The chairman is another Prof - Mike Gill - who said "Climate change already affects human health, creating problems that will increase if no action is taken."
Today - "Sea levels to rise twice as fast as predicted" and an article by Mary Riddle (don't ask) "The Copenhagen summit is not only important for the planet - it could also shape politics at home."
What about the big story? Neery an inch. Must be some letters. Nope not one.
Perhaps the most aggravating aspect of the entire climate change issue is the concept of "scientific consensus." Consensus, quite simply, is NOT science. We can all agree the sky is falling, but that doesn't make it science, or a truth. Show us the non-manipulated data without the innate bias of consensus derived among the like-minded.
Firstly I should declare that my PhD is in Economic History and so I do not pretend to claim any authority in the field of science. However, I am a reasonably intelligent and well-educated human being and I do have some serious reservations with respect to some of the arguments surrounding the science used in the climate change debate.
I was always under the impression, and I’m sure I’ll be corrected if I’m wrong, that pure science is based upon the scientific method. The laws of physics are an example: if I jump out of my third storey window, a physicist can tell me with absolute certainty that here on Earth I will accelerate towards the ground at 9.81 metres per second per second. How they be so certain? Simple—because they have repeatedly measured it by experiment and always come up with the same value. This is what gives true science its deserved authority.
Meteorology, on the other hand, like economics, is not based upon strict scientific method—even though both disciplines like to attach the authority of science to themselves. Rather, both rely on statistical modelling of large amounts of raw data to extrapolate current trends and predict future ones. In economics the raw data are the millions of transactions carried out in the global market every day; in meteorology the raw data is drawn from unpredictable mother nature and is even more diverse and complex. Thus, neither can predict future events with one hundred percent certainty and are more akin to studying the form guide and picking a winner than engaging in true scientific experiment. Ask yourself how many times economists, and indeed weathermen, have got it wrong. Furthermore, as a previous commentator has noted, depending on which constants you introduce, and what aspects of the data you choose to focus on, you can more or less get the statistics to say what you want. Therefore to claim that the science is done and dusted on this issue is patently untrue as far as I’m concerned.
I would also like someone to clarify the hole in the ozone phenomenon for me as well. I certainly do not doubt its existence because I have seen the evidence—and it looks compelling, but what is to say that it isn’t an intrinsic feature of the polar atmosphere? Was it there the day before the scientists discovered it? If so, how can we be certain that it hasn’t always been there? Moreover, without any records prior to its recent discovery, how do we know that its expansion isn’t part of a much longer cycle of expansion and contraction?
Until these and many other questions can be answered, I remain a sceptic. What I do see much more clearly, however, is a whole new layer of taxation being imposed upon an already overburdened population and wonder if this, perhaps, is what is really driving the climate change debate.
David Welch on December 01, 2009 at 05:27 PM
"He had said @ 3.41 pm that glaciers were retreating a few thousand years ago, then @ 11.30 pm claimed in skitting my rejoinder that he had never mentioned glaciers in any post!!"
I'm afraid not, David.
I restrict myself to posting on the science, not the circumstantial evidence that proves nothing at all.
Of course, if I did post such a comment, you will be able to reproduce it, won't you?
As for the email, the evidence is clear. It was sent by Kevin Trenberth on 12 Oct 2009, the relevant section is "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."
You can lie, smear and insult all you like, David, the facts are available for all to see.
Not picking on you but... :)
David Welch on December 01, 2009 at 02:40 PM
"a vicious campaign to destroy science, medicine"
Having worked in the development of medical equipment I would say the contrary, this episode underwrites the concerns of research software and possible poor practice ever getting into mainstream products. To this end, there are many hurdles to step over to get certification before life critical products can be used for the public and quite rightly so. Such as we are seeing here demonstrates the importance of robust and provable procedures when handling data, be it say body scan data processing or policy making climate data processing. What we see in the revealed procedures and practice is blatantly unacceptable especially considering how much money is going into these organisations but it seems from the emails most of what they do is develop their carbon footprints. In the real world such practice would have resulted in the cessation of product certification and probably legal ramifications.
David Welch on December 01, 2009 at 01:56 PM
"The 900 posters here have obviously not considered that this e-mail was written in 1999, and if a decline in temperature had been hidden [which of course it wasn`t longterm] then that would have made the case for global warming all the stronger.
I.e. causing lowered temperatures before 1999, which would exaggerate the present warming."
This is a reference to a decline in a Proxy Temperature series evident post 1960! Ergo, it did not match the instrument record therefore if not hidden could be used to invalid the entire series and its usefulness in the hiding of the LIA and MWP thus making current climate change look exceptional.
As bad as the CRU events are I believe this affair has entered a much more darker phase... The silence of the mainstream media on this subject is deafening. Not one front page in the newspapers, absolutely no mention on the radio or the television - either side of the Atlantic it seems. Meanwhile the AGW propaganda machine is at full throttle. This is just reinforcing my fears that a malevolent conspiracy is underway and we are at the moment powerless to stop it.
Do we really have to take to the streets to demand action?
If David Welch supposes that "A few rash words" can't be seriously damaging, he doesn't know much history (Henry II and Thomas A Becket, for instance). This is hardly a convincing way to play down the matter in question. Much depends on what the words are.
Finally the World is aware of the behind the scenes work being done by the "Climate Change" camp to misdirect any attention from their critics. But this is not surprising: the "Evolution camp" has been doing the same thing in their quest to fend off any criticism of their flawed science in support of Darwin, to the point of forbidding discussion of any alternative "theories".
fishshocker on December 01, 2009 at 05:02 PM
"Think for a minute who has the most to gain by misrepresenting the data"
Yes, let's do just that!
"Carbon trading could be worth twice that of oil in next decade
The carbon market could become double the size of the vast oil market, according to the new breed of City players who trade greenhouse gas emissions through the EU's emissions trading scheme."
Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/carbon-trading-market-copenhagen-summit
(repost)
Just ask Al Gore.
David Welch on December 01, 2009 at 04:33 PM
"The claim that the present CRU affair is "the worst scientific scandal of our generation" shows how miniscule is Christopher Booker`s knowledge of science."
After your blatant lies about Mr. Booker's asbestos information (debunked by Kate
on December 01, 2009 at 03:52 PM), and even more obvious smear attempt over Kevin Trenberth's email (debunked my myself on December 01, 2009 at 04:21 PM), I don't somehow think you have the credibility to criticise anyone else's knowledge of anything at all, do you David?
You know nothing, so you make things up, in a pathetic attempt to discredit the messenger. Hmmmm, now who else has just been caught doing exactly that.... work at CRU do you?
You seem to be getting very manic about this, is the collapse of the AGW scam going to cost you your life savings or something?
Manapatra 4.20pm
Nice try but here are the facts.
From 1942 to 1975 there was a slow drop in Global temperatures and during this time global emissions increased by 16 billion tons of CO2 per year.
From 1910 to 1942 there was a rapid rise in Global temperatures and during this time global emissions increased by half a billion tons of CO2 per year.
So from 1942 to 1975 the Earth cooled as the Atmospheric CO2 concentration grew.
So the one fact rubbishes your comments:
Global temperatures dropped over a 33 year period and during this time CO2 atmospheric emissions dramatically increased.
Please mention this fact to all the institutions mentioned in your posting.
Tom- "If you don't believe in climate change, you're brain dead".
You left out:
The sky is falling
The Aliens have landed
CERN will destroy the earth
Climate change is normal and is not caused by hair spray or a Hemi. Wake up!
Ladies and Gentleman.. The Science has left the Building!
"I have taken the trouble to read several hundred of these private emails. I don't know why they are so controversial. It seems to me these scientists were trying to sort out some badly processed data they inherited and were doing their job properly"
Please take time to read the source code manipulations also.
"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
(…)
;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj"
Doing their job?
Can programmers comment on this please?
Spent the last 5 months researching the AGW reviewing many articles and cross refences on American Thinker. It is quite clear that after reading studies by Steve McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Lord Monckton, Richard Lantzen,and Marc Sheppard as well as others who have been countering the false information being spewed out by the likes of Ken Briffa, Michael Mann, Phil Jones and others from the CRU at the University of East Anglia, it is quite clear that AGW, otherwise known as anthropogenic global warming is a fraud of the highest magnitude being perpetrated on America and the global community and needs to be stopped at all costs, and for the Obama crowd to continue to openly support this fraudulent, environmentalist, globalistic ideology is a treachery of greater than anything that has been foisted on the American people in at least the past 100 years, and is destined, if permitted to be implemented, to complete destruction of the American economy and individual freedoms. What a travesty.
Ken Shaw, Esq.
Warren, OH
Manapatra on December 01, 2009 at 04:20 PM
"The consensus on AGW has taken nearly a century to develop, and is based on a huge and heavily scrutinized body of research"
Not heavily enough scrutinised, it seems, as the information at the very foundations of the theory is suspect.
Tell me, Manapatra, as you claim to be an expert, what does "inverse logarithmic" mean to you, and if an increase of 120 ppm of CO2 was responsible for a temperature rise of 0.7 deg. K, what increase in the concentration of CO2 would be necessary to create a 6 deg K. rise in temperature, and further, given that CO2 is rising at approximately2ppm per annum, approximately how long would this take to occur (to the nearest century will be acceptable)?
I wonder how dare Catweazle comment about me again (@ 4.21 pm) after his thorough drubbing yesterday on another climate thread.
He had said @ 3.41 pm that glaciers were retreating a few thousand years ago, then @ 11.30 pm claimed in skitting my rejoinder that he had never mentioned glaciers in any post!!
How can he forget in 8 hours that he posted on glaciers.
But then today he complains @ 4.21 pm that the e-mail with a suggestion that temperatures would be adjusted lower was not sent by Phil Jones in 1999.
This despite the e-mail being visible on this messageboard in the list of supposedly most contentious ones.
Sorry but James Delingpole didn't created the term "Climategate". It was a commenter on:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/
which being the main source of information at the start of the scandal James probably read.
Where is the outrage from the scientific community? What about scientfic integrity? All I see is a circling of the wagons to protect their own.
One question is settled - the IPCC is a corrupt, politically-charged body, worthy of ridicule. Nothing they produce can be taken seriously. They should, in fact, be prosecuted for fraud and theft of taxpayer funds.
Those who continue to hitch their wagon to this sad lot are simply too stupid to admit they have been scamming us all along.
In another era it would be "Off with their heads!". Oh, how I long for the good old days.
Wow this just goes on and on, and I will continue to sit on the fence for the moment, but I just had a thought.
What if we are going through a cooling period, how long will it last? Are the "climate scientists" pushing everything now and trying to get the regulations now, so that in 5 years time they can release their 10 year observations and say, 'look at how the temperatures have stayed level/gone down, that means that we were right to impose our draconian laws on you and curtail your freedoms. Didn't we do well and you must all thank us for averting catastrophe.'
When in reality the temperatures where leveling off/going down anyway no matter what we did. Ok so I'm not exactly sitting on the fence.
If you are so worried about carbon dioxide being a pollutant, then stop breathing, you will do the world a favour!
Look at the carbon cycle.
David Welch seems to have missed the point that it is not a question of whether or not we should listen to scientists, but of WHICH scientists we should listen to. He might understand better of he were to read The Real Global Warming Disaster.
David Welch seems to have missed the point that it is not a question of whether or not we should listen to scientists, but of WHICH scientists we should listen to. He might understand better of he were to read The Real Global Warming Disaster.
Spent the last 5 months researching the AGW reviewing many articles and cross refences on American Thinker. It is quite clear that after reading studies by Steve McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Lord Monckton, Richard Lantzen,and Marc Sheppard as well as others who have been countering the false information being spewed out by the likes of Ken Briffa, Michael Mann, Phil Jones and others from the CRU at the University of East Anglia, it is quite clear that AGW, otherwise known as anthropogenic global warming is a fraud of the highest magnitude being perpetrated on America and the global community and needs to be stopped at all costs, and for the Obama crowd to continue to openly support this fraudulent, environmentalist, globalistic ideology is a treachery of greater than anything that has been foisted on the American people in at least the past 100 years, and is destined, if permitted to be implemented, to complete destruction of the American economy and individual freedoms. What a travesty.
Ken Shaw, Esq.
Warren, OH
Manapatra, all Government funded bodies without exception. Duh. What you should have stated was Global Warming Hoax, Planned in 1961
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvcuylMrkXk&feature=player_embedded
Well, nobody can say that censorship is dead. Having posted the following on the Guardian's website, it has been "moderated out"!
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html
And this:
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/MornerEtAl2004.pdf
Quoting the extract:
"In the IPCC scenarios, the Maldives were condemned to disappear in the sea in the near future (e.g. Hoffman et al., 1983; IPCC, 2001). Our documentation of actual field evidence contradicts this hypothesis."
No other comments were added, so why is the Guardian in denial?
Wow this just goes on and on, and I will continue to sit on the fence for the moment, but I just had a thought.
What if we are going through a cooling period, how long will it last? Are the "climate scientists" pushing everything now and trying to get the regulations now, so that in 5 years time they can release their 10 year observations and say, 'look at how the temperatures have stayed level/gone down, that means that we were right to impose our draconian laws on you and curtail your freedoms. Didn't we do well and you must all thank us for averting catastrophe.'
When in reality the temperatures where leveling off/going down anyway no matter what we did. Ok so I'm not exactly sitting on the fence.
If you are so worried about carbon dioxide being a pollutant, then stop breathing, you will do the world a favour!
Look at the carbon cycle.
re9luv9u9tion
100 percent correct. Well done.
Simon Ward,
Well done - your explanation is excellent. We are blaming the wrong culprit - it is water vapour that is the major contributor to the greenhouse effect, not CO2.
The climate is cyclical and there is nothing we can do about it - other than adapt and use technology to engineer realistic solutions to any adverse climatic effects.
Quite simply the so-called CO2 problem is a modern day bogey-man used by people with mediaevel mentalities and delusions of power.
Beat them with true science and genuine knowledge and they will eventually have to succumb!
Never again must a small undemocratic minority be allowed to dominate the majority.
And my first winess when the enquiry begins (after the CRU) would be the BBC.
Simon Ward,
Well done - your explanation is excellent. We are blaming the wrong culprit - it is water vapour that is the major contributor to the greenhouse effect, not CO2.
The climate is cyclical and there is nothing we can do about it - other than adapt and use technology to engineer realistic solutions to any adverse climatic effects.
Quite simply the so-called CO2 problem is a modern day bogey-man used by people with mediaevel mentalities and delusions of power.
Beat them with true science and genuine knowledge and they will eventually have to succumb!
Never again must a small undemocratic minority be allowed to dominate the majority.
And my first winess when the enquiry begins (after the CRU) would be the BBC.
The climate sceptic idea seems to be that scientists have spent decades deliberately falsifying data, just so that they can get more grants to falsify more data.
This is a clearly stupid theory, and anyone with any common sense would reject it.
Some people have a major financial interest in prolonging the supposed controversy about climate change. These include carbon intensive industries and some journalists and authors.
Think for a minute who has the most to gain by misrepresenting the data
I have said it before and now it is confirmed: this is suspect (at best) science and I am somewhat appalled to even call it science. If I turned in work of this quality I would be packing my desk and finding a new job before anyone got a chance to read through my report(s).
Ultimately in these 'scientists' minds it i...s OK to just throw out the stuff that does not fit your hypothesis and go on with your work. I know that people think that I am biased due to my occupation but this is just the plain and simple basics that you learned (or were supposed to have learned) in Junior High science.
I spend countless hours of my life trying to get a myriad of various data sets to all fit into one model and come up with a range of reasonable results which is defendable to my peers and management. While I agree that there are reasons for the application of filters and statistics there is absolutely NO reason that you should not: (1) show all of the data (both raw and processed), (2) make your methodologies available for scrutiny and (3) be willing to have your results pulled apart and critiqued.
This fiasco shows that the 'scientists' were both engineering their results and then covering up what they had done by deleting data and altering the peer review process. I have won awards for my peer review in major publications and when I read some of these 'reviewed' articles I get really angry that some expert somewhere let the contents pass review. I cannot believe that one of the guys said that the data was deleted before he got there and therefore it was not his fault! Maybe the deletion was not his fault but building upon data that he himself had not reviewed was WRONG!
Finally, here is my main issue with science in general: the scientific method is fundamentally flawed because steps 1 (in part), 2 and 3 occur before you have any experimental data (step 4). This essentially leads to someone having a preconcieved notion about what the results should be in advance of the results themselves. This becomes particularly sticky when you have gone out and obtained funding to do research and then the results do not show what you have said that they will. Hard to justify spending money on a project and then finding out that the expenditure showed inconclusive results (which the current CO2 versus global temperature are). Make no mistake: there is a lot of money at stake here and this situation clearly illustrates what happens when scientists care more about having the funding to do their work than the work itself. Also, don't even get me started on what goes on in university research projects that are not provided with STRONG guidance from the real world (they are often useless and misleading which is a whole different essay).
In the private sector I get paid to do analyses that will determine where capital will be employed to make money and when I see that the results of a model indicate that a poor result then I am required (by ethics) to stand up and say so. Even if management really wants a project to succeed I have to have the fortitude to stand up and state my opinion of the technical results that I have provided regardless of their feelings. The exact opposite is going on in the climate science world and it really makes me angry.
The earth is a highly buffered system. All this riot about carbon emissions is based on junk science. Read Lord Christopher Monckton's "Instrument of Repudiation" and respond by signing on to the effort to refute and totally repudiate the false premises on which anthropomorphic climate change is based.
"So wherefore now my Lords Carbonic?,
such Knavish tricks-
could be demonic-
Fair Science it does weep
this day-"let Reason rule;keep fraud at bay!"
So wherefore now my Lords Carbonic?,thy "knightly" name being proved ironic,
and all for Mammon's empty lure;but Science shall live-of that I'm sure!"
Climate-gate will be minuscule in comparison to "cosmology-gate" when the true nature of the universe is shone through the light of plasma cosmology...oh the tears.
I have taken the trouble to read several hundred of these private emails. I don't know why they are so controversial. It seems to me these scientists were trying to sort out some badly processed data they inherited and were doing their job properly.
As does Asimov 2009-11-21 02:36:36 http://www.tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=118625&page=13
All the emails prove is that the scientists involved found some issues and were addressing them.
The claim that the present CRU affair is "the worst scientific scandal of our generation" shows how miniscule is Christopher Booker`s knowledge of science.
I say this confidentally despite 1079 messages now apparantly received here, 90% uncritically believing every sentence this journalist writes.
A few rash words in a thousand e-mails does not come into the same league as
1. The Lysenko genetics experiments and theorising that saw opponents imprisoned, and has now been repudiated.
2. The Windscale fire (1957) cover-up, ordered by Harold Macmillan, and seriously extended by Margaret Thatcher when the Chernobyl disaster occurred. In checking for radioactive deposits from Chernobyl in the UK, scientists uncovered that dangerous levels of radioactivity had existed in parts of Northern England and Southern Scotland since 1957.
This had not to be made known to the public even though livestock sales were stopped from the affected districts, and extra cancers had very likely resulted from the 1957 fire.
3. The Heslop-Harrison plantings on Rum. Alpine plants were secretly transplanted c. 1950 and then claimed as natives previously undiscovered, in support of a theory that the Hebrides had been ice-free during the recent glaciations.
"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock."
"A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
...
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births."
"In today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?"
Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.
"The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits."
"If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization."
John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar from his book 'Ecoscience'
“This is the way we are setting the scene for mankind’s encounter with the planet. The opposition between the two ideologies that have dominated the 20th century has collapsed, forming their own vacuum and leaving nothing but crass materialism.
It is a law of Nature that any vacuum will be filled and therefore eliminated unless this is physically prevented. “Nature,” as the saying goes, “abhors a vacuum.” And people, as children of Nature, can only feel uncomfortable, even though they may not recognize that they are living in a vacuum. How then is the vacuum to be eliminated?
It would seem that humans need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in the vacuum; such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.
New enemies therefore have to be identified.
New strategies imagined, new weapons devised.
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.
The old democracies have functioned reasonably well over the last 200 years, but they appear now to be in a phase of complacent stagnation with little evidence of real leadership and innovation
Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.”
Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution
It's time we look behind the curtain & begin joining the dots...
Conspiracy Theory?
No, it's fact. This is the tip of a a EUGENICS iceberg & I ask my fellow citizens, & journalists of conscience to start to uncover this crime against humanity.
This is not just about some crooked scientists, how could they enforce the truth embargo now operating across politics & media?
Their complicity will be remembered by the people.
We are seeing a global awakening of humanity to the truth & although this will be difficult, it will lead to a renaissance of humanity based on truth & love.
This is just the start of the reLOVEution so hang on!
Love to all.
When this new tax was dreamed up they did not bank on the internet being around able to broadcast the conspiracy
David Welch on December 01, 2009 at 01:56 PM
"As just one example, there is the stolen e-mail in which Phil Jones seemingly talks of hiding a decline in temperature in some data.
The 900 posters here have obviously not considered that this e-mail was written in 1999"
Actually, the email in question was not sent by Jones, it was sent by Kevin Trenberth, and was not sent in 1999, as it is dated and timed Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600.
Link: http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/kevin-trenberths-real-travesty/
And the rest of your rabid froth is just as inaccurate, David.
You seem to be taking this setback somewhat personally, do you have money in windmills or something?
Or have you simply stopped taking your medication?
For people who use scientific-sounding jargon, the self-proclaimed "experts" in he denialist camp exhibit truly breathtaking ignorance.
The consensus on AGW has taken nearly a century to develop, and is based on a huge and heavily scrutinized body of research. In order to challenge this evidence, and undermine Science, these “skeptics” will have to explain (or explain away) empirical observations from:
satellite data (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements);
radiosondes (cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/temp/angell/angell.html);
borehole analysis (www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html);
glacial melt observations (nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html);
sea ice melt (nsidc.org/news/press/20050928_trendscontinue.html);
sea level rise (sealevel.colarado.edu);
proxy reconstructions (www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html);
permafrost melt (www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg18725124.500)
They will also need to hack into the email accounts of the many, many other scientific bodies who endorse AGW, all around the world, including:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil);
the Royal Society of Canada; Chinese Academy of Sciences;
Academié des Sciences (France);
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany);
Indian National Science Academy;
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy);
Science Council of Japan;
Russian Academy of Sciences;
Royal Society (United Kingdom);
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America);
Australian Academy of Sciences;
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts;
Caribbean Academy of Sciences; Indonesian Academy of Sciences;
Royal Irish Academy;
Academy of Sciences Malaysia;
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand;
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.
The IPCC Third Assessment Report was the most comprehensive summary of current climate research, and probably the most peer-reviewed document in history. It involved contributions from independent bodies from all over the planet, including:
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS);
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA);
National Academy of Sciences (NAS); State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC);
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS);
American Geophysical Union (AGU);
American Institute of Physics (AIP);
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR);
American Meteorological Society (AMS);
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS).
“SCAR, a partnership of 35 of the world’s leading climate research institutions, made the prediction in the report [released on Monday] Antarctic Climate Change and Climate. It far exceeds the 0.59 metre rise by the end of the century quoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6938356.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=3392178
The condition of "Climate Science" is even worse than being alleged. Some competent physicists have mathematically demonstrated that the whole core of CO2 insulation is false, including the radiative. It doesn't apply at atmospheric pressures and temperatures. Furthermore, satellite measurement of escaping radiation shows no imbalance or absorption; the Greenhouse Effect is entirely imaginary.
Even in a glass greenhouse, heat is trapped by closing off air circulation, and nothing else.
What absolutely blows me away is that there are STILL people who will get on this forum and write that they still believe in this whole MMGW crap, even though it is obvious to anyone with half of an independent thought that the data has been cooked and manipulated as a driving force to destroy capitalism. When someone can be taxed for how much CO2 they exhale, they are essentially being taxed for breathing. And you IDIOTS would willingly give these anti-capitalists the power to steal your freedoms, even when it's blatantly obvious that killing freedom is the end goal. Lucky for me, I live in the US, and my countrymen won't stand for it. We will go down shooting if we have to.
Mr Booker is accurate in his writings about asbestos. Here is an example of anti-asbestos lies from the Government being corrected:
29 Sept 09
NEWS FLASH
The UK Government has been forced to accept a humiliating defeat after being told to withdraw a publicity campaign promoted by the Health & Safety Executive [HSE] claiming that 4500 workers die each year from
asbestos exposure. More specifically the HSE was stating as a fact that 9 carpenters, 9 plumbers and 9
electricians would die each week from asbestos exposure. This was found to be untrue.
The UK Asbestos Watchdog’s complaint to the official Advertising Standards Authority [ASA ] was upheld on all of the 5 complaints made. Watchdog’s evidence that white asbestos cement materials, which makes up 90% of all asbestos products, had no measurable risk to health was not disputed.
For the full judgement visit the AW web site at www.asbestoswatchdog.co.uk
This is Asbestos Watchdog’s second major success. 3 years ago AW successfully challenged the HSE over its high risk assessment of white asbestos containing Artex. The HSE had no choice but to remove asbestos containing Artex from the expensive notifiable asbestos regulations. This allows any builder to do the work without a premium cost.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Asbestos Watchdog is a non-profit organisation launched by the Sunday Telegraph in 2002. They have saved property owners and businesses over £40,000 000 of fraudulent scams. They have published 36 major articles in the Sunday Telegraph alone as well as many other publications exposing this massive deception. They are in no way a commercial competitor with the HSE over any matter at all.
They have evidence to show that the UK Government and the HSC and HSE have deliberately and systematically deceived the public over the risks from asbestos and white asbestos in particular. I will include some of the more important data below.
Firstly, 4000 [or up to 5000 as claimed by the TUC] deaths do NOT occur each year from asbestos-related disease in the UK. The basis for the HSE to make this claim is a series of calculations contrived from a theoretical model based on a linier extrapolation that includes totally wrong data. The formula used by the HSE to justify the basis for the 4000 estimated deaths and 90% of the information in this formula is grossly inaccurate or just plain wrong.
The clinical evidence of what is happening in the real world tells a very different story. Firstly the real mortality figure is approx 1200 deaths per annum. This is still a lot especially if you are about to be one of them and there is no doubt that mesothelioma is a terrible disease. However over 95% of all mesotheliomas
occur in workers born before 1940.
This is not a modern disease and no carpenter or plumber or general builder working in today’s environment is likely to get an asbestos-related disease.Anyone who will develop an asbestos related disease today or in the future already has it and if all asbestos materials disappeared overnight it would not stop the incidence of asbestos-related disease. The number of actual events is falling. The apparent rise in cases is from the increased number of spurious claims cases as a result of this fraudulent advertising. The dreadful effect of this scam is to deny real victims of fair compensation and to scare the general public into unnecessary expensive removal.
The series of media releases is not about saving lives it is about persuading workers to claim for asbestos-related exposure. This is a £4 billion per year deception and the unions who have paid for this advert get £250 per referral from the asbestos claims lawyers. It is no coincidence that all the main newspapers and many local ones are all carrying separate adverts for claims lawyers to help workers who feel they have been exposed. In the USA where the same deception is run 90% of all claims have now been identified by the US congress as spurious.
In 1989 the USA banned asbestos for all the same reasons used in the HSE advert. In 1991 it was appealed in the US High Court of the 5th Circuit and the ban was overturned. The judge stated that more people will die from the inhalation of tooth picks in the USA than they will from white asbestos.
In 1999 the HSE got white asbestos banned in the UK. [ white asbestos materials make up 90% of all asbestos materials in the UK.]
In 1975 blue asbestos was banned because it was suspected of causing 4000 deaths per year. In 1999 the HSE misled the public and Parliament into believing that white asbestos was the same risk.
Branches of the National Farmers Union have recently started the process of a Judicial Review to challenge the HSE’s assessment of the risks from white asbestos using some of the evidence shown here. There is a lot more, and will include the evidence to show that we believe these adverts are technically fraudulent.
In 2008, the HSE were invited to explain why they were using false data to support their position. They refused to attend the NFU conference at Eynsham in Feb 08. Then a book called ‘Scared to Death’ by Christopher Booker and Richard North contained a chapter on the asbestos deception. This showed overwhelming evidence of major fraud.
Asbestos Watchdog has been recently sent evidence that the claims lawyers and the unions behind these adverts are making substantial donations to the Labour Party . Hence the full co-operation of the BBC in promoting Labour Party / Government policy
If you need to confirm this evidence you need to ask the HSE for clear answers to the following questions:
1.) Can you confirm that your 4000 asbestos-related deaths is from a theoretical model and that the clinical evidence does not confirm it?
2.) Does the HSE have evidence that the US judge in 1991 was in any way wrong?
3.) How much is the Labour Party [directly or indirectly] receiving from Thompson’s Solicitors & others as donations from asbestos claims?
4.) [Most important of all] Will the HSE be willing to attend a debate chaired by an independent body to answer and explain the above questions?
The putrid stench passed off as "Law Enforcement" will enable this swill to continue their lies and perfidy. Instead of charging the AGW swill with the crimes they have committed, the pigs will go after the journalist(s) who had the guts to expose their conspiracy. Just like the California pigs are doing for Master Moonbat in the ACORN expose - letting ACORN go free and investigating those brave journalists who exposed them. Putrid stench of filthy maggot pig swill!
I urge anyone who has not done so to read Nigel Lawson's book An Appeal To Reason. Whilst not denying the possibility of MMGW, Lawson argues that the science is highly uncertain, the IPCC reaction is completely OTT and that a reasonable debate should take place. Why do we not see any debate and rationality?
I am annoyed like many of the posters on here by the constant propaganda and lack of balance particularly with the BBC. What about batty Bianca Jagger on the Daily Politics linking the Cumbrian Floods to "Climate Change". God help us!
At Imperial College, the first thing we were taught was not to fool ourselves. Never simply throw away "bad" data that did not support the theory. It appears that UEA does not have anything like as strict a teaching - the real looser will be the integrity of science.
Furthermore, what they never tell you is that water vapour is actually the most major "greenhouse gas" by a long way, accounting for around 85-95% of the Earth's greenhouse effect. CO2 is a minor factor. Couple that with the fact that man-made CO2 is a minor factor in the atmospheric CO2 and you have a very small effect indeed. I have always found it incredible that the climate is allegedly so hypersensitive to man-made CO2. The major factor is water vapour, which we would expect to vary and there is nothing we can do about it given that 4/5 of the Earth is covered with water.
The CO2-temperature correlation does exist, but the temperature rises BEFORE the CO2 suggesting that it is the effect rather than the cause. The most likely explanation is that as oceans warm due to other factors, CO2 becomes less soluble and is released.
Then there are the climate predictions. It is unfortunate that with climate, you cannot experiment in a lab because you need a whole planet. Therefore, almost all predictions are based on computer models. However, these models cannot hope to simulate the level of detail that is required. They do not model real physics as it were, but rather they use "parameterization" to approximate the physics. Therein lies the real problem that you do not really know what the values of the parameters should be, but you can tweak them to change the results. What happens is that they choose parameters that give the desired results and they say that these must be the correct values because they gave the "right" answers. It can be disingenuous cyclic logic.
Having said this, atmospheric science is still worth studying, but it needs to be done with scientific integrity, and it needs to be funded whether it gives the results certain interests want or not.
Oh dear David, as indicated by your latest rantings you quite obviously feel that your opinion is above reproach due being 'elitist'. Lest you realise that in fact you'll likely find that a great many commentators here are indeed 'degree educated' and more than an intellectual equal as someone as special as you quite obviously feel you are. Making gross judgements about people's opinions here just because you don't like what has been said shows your depth of character more than those who are commenting here. The sad irony of your comments is in fact the scientific behaviour of the CRU and their associations have brought into disrepute the very foundation of critical science. I assume you have read the recent revelations about the UEA having 'lost' the HADCRUT raw data, they only have their 'value added' data left. This is science? Not in the world of anyone worth their qualifications in any scientific field it most certainly isn't. Read the CRU emails, all 900+ of them, read the modelling code and the comments made by the developer in between code segments, read the now infamous 'Harry Readme' file, THEN comment here. I defy any person with any semblence of reason to read through them and not realise that the IPCC is utterly corrupt. Other datasets around the world are under investigation also, such as the GISS data championed by Al Gore's pet monkey Professor Hansen.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/30/dont-forget-giss.html
This is much bigger than just the corruption of the CRU scientists!
Global warming has been a joke from the beginning. Why would God make a system that doesn't work? God made plants to balance out the equation by taking care of our waste gases and vice versa. Even if we chop down all the forests marine algae would take up the slack.
David Welch -
For a start, we "idiots" are not Coolists. We know the climate is changing because it always has and always will. In the short run - say the next 50 years - it may get warmer or it may get cooler. Some of the people promoting AGW now started off by warning of a new ice age because the period after the Second World War was cooler than the 1920s and 1930s. Then it got warmer in the 1970s. This may happen again but what will the politicians be told to do to stop it happening? Get us to burn everything to hand? The problem is the arrogant assumption that today's human beings (ie the politicians) are greater than nature itself; at least, that's what they want us to believe.
Another thing: Christopher Booker didn't say asbestos was safe - just WHITE asbestos which actually isn't asbestos at all. All he does is research everything the scientists, politicians and media have published and said (footnotes give the sources in his books). Obviously he draws conclusions from all this, just as we do.
Yes it is a FRAUD.
But, you will never see an article in the NY Times saying so.
GW is a scam and a redistribution of wealth scheme. Wake up.
Belief and hypothesis is not science and neither is the manipulation of data to suit that belief and hypothesis acceptable. Without allowing other scientists the opportunity to replicate your findings by destroying or withholding core data completely invalidates all subsequent assumptions drawn from that data! QED.
Phil says:
"This might be the death of science itself, because who is going to believe you lot now".
So everyone with scientific training is under fire, because of 5 or 6 rash words in a batch of a thousand e-mails.
Pathetic, that the Coolists should want to destroy our scientific establishment because of a few words words that have been misinterpreted by those wanting to make money out of the Coolist religion.
We are witnessing in this present controversy a vicious campaign to destroy science, medicine and all forms of knowledge-based activity that can be classed as elitist by those people who haven`t been educated to degree level.
Iain for example @ 12.27 pm throws in for his contempt, along with warmists, people wanting water flouridation, immunisation, and fighting AIDS.
This attack on knowledge and science will have grave results for our next generations, and must be resisted by all who have sufficient brain to appreciate how life has been improved by past medicinal and scientific research.
We elitists must fight back, whatever party we belong.
Run...Manbearpig is just outside your door! Thank God that Al Gore didn't become our president.
It ironic for Christopher Booker to talk of the "scientific establishment" being compromised when he is so compromised himself.
And clearly writing his columns and books solely to make money.
I paste about his pro-asbestos doings.
""To all sceptics - please note Bookers previous form on asbestos...don't let it happen again on climate change.
Note his continuous and knowing modus operandi of repetition of falsehoods and citing dodgy "experts" to back up his whacky case - despite the evident negligence involved and risks he caused to others:
"Booker's scientific claims, which include the false assertion that white asbestos (chrysotile) is "chemically identical to talcum powder" were also analysed in detail by Richard Wilson in his book Don't Get Fooled Again (2008). (The chemical formula for talc is H2Mg3(SiO3)4 or Mg3Si4O10(OH)2, while the formula for chrysotile, the primary ingredient of white asbestos, is Mg3(Si2O5)(OH)4. It is worth noting that even if the composition were identical, which it clearly isn't, the actual structure/connectivity is what is significant, a situation well known in chemistry as isomerism at a molecular level and polymorphism (materials science) in the case of non-molecular materials or crystals. What makes chrysotile dangerous is not its composition - silicates are common - but its fibrous structure.
Wilson highlighted Christopher Booker's repeated endorsement of the alleged scientific expertise of John Bridle, who has claimed to be "the world's foremost authority on asbestos science", but who in 2005 was convicted under the UK's Trade Descriptions Act of making false claims about his qualifications, and who the BBC has accused of basing his reputation on "lies about his credentials, unaccredited tests, and self aggrandisement".
Christopher Booker's scientific claims about asbestos have been criticized several times by the UK government's Health and Safety Executive.
In 2002, the HSE's Director General, Timothy Walker, wrote that Booker's articles on asbestos had been "misinformed and do little to increase public understanding of a very important occupational health issue”.
In 2005, the Health and Safety Executive issued a rebuttal after Christopher Booker wrote an article suggesting, incorrectly, that the HSE had agreed with him that white asbestos posed "no medical risk".
In 2006, the HSE published a further rebuttal after Christopher Booker had claimed, again incorrectly, that the Health and Safety Laboratory had concluded that the white asbestos contained within Artex textured coatings posed "no health risk".
In May 2008, the Health and Safety Executive accused Booker of writing an article that was "substantially misleading".
In the article, published by the Sunday Telegraph earlier that month, Booker had claimed, falsely, that a paper produced in 2000 by two HSE statisticians, Hodgson and Darnton, had 'concluded that the risk of contracting mesothelioma from white asbestos cement was "insignificant", while that of lung cancer was "zero"'.
Enough said"".
Tom says: "If you don't believe in climate change, you're brain dead." Precisely. This whole issue has now (finally!) been exposed as a scientific fraud which means, by definition, we do not KNOW. So we are now to take it on faith. Martin Luther said: "No man can know he is saved, he can only believe it." While the object of Tom's belief may be different than Luther's, faith is faith and is a necessary foundation to all religion. So we're back to arguing science vs religion, seldom a comfortable position for the believers.
That there are around 900 messages here and 90% of them are from Coolists who have no knowledge of science, and maybe another 5% from Coolists who have a science training, simply shows how many people can be fooled by skilled journalists out to make money.
So they believe Christopher Booker who has a long track record of arguing for causes now totally rejected, e.g. like asbestos is safe, rather than dedicated scientists with long careers carefully building up their knowledge of the subjects now in dispute.
The same phenomenon of many people being taking in by skilled oratory and political motivation has happened in Nazi Germany, and presently is seen with the BNP in the UK.
The Coolists` case is very weak to anyone who carefully examines it, but millions are taken in.
As just one example, there is the stolen e-mail in which Phil Jones seemingly talks of hiding a decline in temperature in some data.
The 900 posters here have obviously not considered that this e-mail was written in 1999, and if a decline in temperature had been hidden [which of course it wasn`t longterm] then that would have made the case for global warming all the stronger.
I.e. causing lowered temperatures before 1999, which would exaggerate the present warming.
The Telegraph appears to be ambivalent about this issue, no doubt, as somebody said, because of different editorial opinions. On Sunday we get Christopher Booker but during the week the AGW stance is usually promoted through Geoffrey Lean, Mary Riddell and others. There are even little climate change warnings on the weather forecast page.
I would love to see a debate between Messrs Booker and Lean. I wonder if the latter has read Booker's recent book on the history of the subject.
Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker. >>>>>> This is the first truthful statement made on this topic. There is no real science behind Climate change. Thank you and your news paper for printing this story. What is the rest of the news media waiting for???
"The fact that this has been applied to just this one article suggests that some higher-up at the Telegraph from the warmist camp was concerned about how the article had gone viral and wanted to contain its spread."
Global warming is beyond science. It's clearly a faith issue, a religion.
There are people who are prepared to commit any crime on its behalf.
They would burn the "deniers" at the stake if they had to.
For the sake of humanity, of course.
There have been some good video reports made recently concerning the “Global Warming” conspiracy – a massive scam, having the objective of fleecing First World taxpayers to enrich a small group of New World Order “illuminati”, and providing the funding leading to the further establishment of the New World Order. Some reports confine themselves to the fabrication of data, others expose the reliance of “pro-global warming experts” upon government funding and others still on whom, amongst the international “illuminati”, stand to make a financial killing from promoting and exploiting the myth. However, it is indeed rare to find a video report that outlines the conspiracy in its entirety, one that not only tells you why the global warming “theory” is a Ponzi-scheme style fraud but also why it is being pushed and who stands to benefit from it.
Take some time to view the video:
http://tinyurl.com/ydjs6eb
As an aside it is worthwhile noting that the campaigns of denigration and marginalisation orchestrated by certain sections of the pro-global warming mafia against scientists holding contrary opinions is not dissimilar to the orchestrated campaign of denigration and marginalisation mounted against those brave souls who challenge the New World Order’s other sacred cow – multiculturalism. Perhaps that’s because the same self-serving forces are at work in both cases!
On 13 December 2007, an open letter was sent over the signatures of 100 physicists, economists, social scientists, ecologists, geologists, climatologists, geophysicists and others (from many countries) to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon. The subject line was: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction
The letter begins "It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages."
It goes on to say "The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity"
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002
It makes clear why the IPCC summary reports are misleading. The letter finishes by saying, "Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems."
The list of signatories is here
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004
The Brits who signed include
Dr Sonja A Boehmer-Christiansen
Dr Richard S Courtney
The Rt Hon Lord Lawson of Blaby
Dr Alister McFarquhar
Professor Frank Milne
Did they receive a reply from the UN? Why, two years later, are world governments about to sign up to a legally binding treaty that creates a new "world government" with world taxation and enforcement powers.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/03/the-copenhagen-treaty-draft-wealth-transfer-defined-now-with-dignity-penalty/
We laugh at people who point out conspiracies. Perhaps we should take them more seriously
If you don't believe in climate change, you're brain dead. The majority of people that believe in and speak out for climate change stand to make no money at all for doing so, they, myself included, just want to live in a healthier environment. Whereas the people that don't believe in and speak out against climate change (fossil fuel co's) stand to lose a lot of money, or they're just brain dead corporate programmed morons (the vast majority of the American population). If you don't want to believe in climate change, fine, but you need to think of the effects breathing and drinking all the toxins that are byproducts of fossil fuels has on your health. These things are the real reason cancers, among other diseases are out of control. Not to mention, oil and coal won't be around forever. Do you idiots realize how coal mining and oil drilling are effecting us right now? Mountains are being destroyed for coal. Drilling for oil causes earthquakes. Go ahead, keep being stupid, I hope you all think it is worth the price we'll pay.
If you don't believe in climate change, you're brain dead. The majority of people that believe in and speak out for climate change stand to make no money at all for doing so, they, myself included, just want to live in a healthier environment. Whereas the people that don't believe in and speak out against climate change (fossil fuel co's) stand to lose a lot of money, or they're just brain dead corporate programmed morons (the vast majority of the American population). If you don't want to believe in climate change, fine, but you need to think of the effects breathing and drinking all the toxins that are byproducts of fossil fuels has on your health. These things are the real reason cancers, among other diseases are out of control. Not to mention, oil and coal won't be around forever. Do you idiots realize the effects of coal mining and oil drilling are effecting us right now? Mountains are being destroyed for coal. Drilling for oil causes earthquakes. Go ahead, keep being stupid, I hope you all think it is worth the price we'll pay.
See what Jones and his ilk have done to science. Latest report by "100 contributors and 200 reviewers" from "35 polar research institutes" predicts doom, gloom and disaster and massive rises in sea levels.
On what do they base this? On the massive warming observed in the Antarctic? No. They base it on the fact that the Antartic is COOLING. And since received wisdom is that the world is warming that means there must be another reason. So if they assume the reason is the ozone hole (curious,I don't remember anyone claiming the ozone hole would lead to Antarctic cooling and a drop in sea levels!) and they assume it will fix itself in 50 years then they can assume warming WHICH ISN'T HAPPENING NOW will happen at some point 50 years downline.
This is not science - it's pure headline-chasing and grant-chasing speculation. This is the pathetic state that the climate establishment has reduced us to.
The AGW scam has been exposed, the communist world government and media have been exposed. Now at last can we see the truth about AIDS, water fluoridation, Immunizations, chem trails, abortion and the phony drug wars.
After all what kind of fool believes what liars say.
John S
on December 01, 2009
at 08:55 AM
You say:
"I want to see all the oil companies destroyed so when I see the CEO s on the street I can kick them to the ground in a dark ally. I want to put every man in a Union out on the streets then deport them! I want to force Luddites into segregation to select states . I hate you, I wish you would die."
If anyone had even the smallest doubt that the warmist's case had been destroyed, your idiotic Ad hominem attack instead of reasoned debate has fully exposed the evil that is the mindset of the eco-mentalist.
While obnoxious rantings from the intellectually defective cult movement are to be expected now that their reason to exist has been shown to be a fraud, your drivel proves only one thing, You and your kind are a disgrace to humanity and should seek urgent psychiatric help.
Clearly you are hurt to discover that your belief in AGW is just a superstition which is denied by science. And I am sorry that this causes you pain. But lashing out at others in response will not ease your hurt.
Recant your superstitious belief and the pain will go away.
Manbearpig is real!
Copenhagen will happen - and the outcome has already been decided.
Make the most of this commenting facility while you can because the EU Constitreaty kicks in today, so from now on, be prepared to live in a dictatorship, where the few control the many without any accountability and at huge financial and social cost.
You were warned but chose to ignore it, condemning the warnings as 'conspiracy theories' when it is now plain to see what they have in store for us.
The manufactured Economoc crisis - mass immigration - the climate-change scam - the loss of our inherant freedoms ... join the dots, folks, it's a New World Order with a One World Government.
We are the new slaves on their world plantation.
Well someone has to pay for it.
Now who's that kicking down my doo .... Aaaaarrrggghh!
The most delicious outcome of all this would be to discover (after we cut carbon emissions to the bone) that the climate was naturally headed for another ice age, and that CO2 emissions had been holding it back.
All I have to add is that now the original data has been destroyed/deleted or lost there is NO way that the concept of AGW can be proven! We only have the manipulated, smoothed, adjusted data to work with. Therefore as there can be no proof the whole caboodle is merely theory and extrapolation of ideas. The incompetent and insidious CRU did us all a favour by destroying the raw data. The whole world needs to wake up to the fact that the Emperor has no clothes !
We all know that there is no such thing as climate change caused by humans. Once upon a time North America was richer in Wildlife including elephants, rhinos, bears, bison than Africa. When people moved in, all this disappeared forever. There used to be flocks of passenger pigeons 5 billion strong among billions of great auks. they all disappeared. Huge amounts of tropical forest have disappeared. There is a continent sized mess of plastic in the middle of the Pacific and we have increased the Carbon Dioxide concentration from 300 to 500PPM. But our species can't possibly affect anything as sensitive and as fragile as world wide climate. It's all God and a conspiracy. I will do everything in my power to consume as much as I please and can afford.
I just submitted an offical complaint to the BBC about their lack of coverage on the Climategate scandal. I looked across their Science and Environment section today, and there is ne'r a mention of Hadley and their dastardly deeds. Instead, I read that we will have a four foot sea level rise by 2100 and that the Antarctic ice cap is melting into the sea. Last I looked its average annual temperature was about -30 C.
Remove the climate debate from today's zeitgeist, climate change is more of fight with the wests conscience.
Barrymond Block,
There is obviously an orchestrated refusal by major television stations, radio and newspapapers to ignore this scandal and sweep "Climategate" under the carpet. I am afraid it does not go with "the programme". Thank God for the DT and we still have the internet and word of mouth.
Keep spreading the word. Civil liberty and personal freedom is under ferocious attack at present.
The propaganda machine is now at full throttle and it is only going to get worse unless we resist.
It's not just your BBC. This news is growing exponentially via the web, only to be met by the total silence of the world's mainstream media. They have become conspicuous by their avoidance. The sheer weight of their numbers must tell us just what a disinformation juggernaught we are up against. Thank god for bloggers.
Skepticus Maximus
on November 30, 2009
at 06:28 PM
Thank you Skepticus's for your riveting comment; long but worth it. Not one spelling mistake or typo which is a treat these days!
It seems from comments that there are a whole lot of would be "scientists" who don't understand that being skeptical is a pre-requisite. One hopes all the global warmers will be forced to resign and hand back whatever qualifications they pretend to have, as a consequence of this "biggest scam ever". This might be the death of science itself, because who is going to believe you lot now?
Sorry ManontheMoor... but....
Peak oil is NOT valid.
We have so much oil v demand that it is having to be stored on tankers anchored at sea all over the globe.
The reason politicians are so desperate to converge on Copenhagen, is because they are all skint and they can smell the extra carbon tax revenuse that they are so close to getting past the gullible public.
A fantastic article written by Christopher Brooker of the London Telegraph exposing the climate change fraud rocketed to the very top of a Google News search for “global warming,” only to disappear hours later.
“What is going on at Google? I only ask because last night when I typed “Global Warming” into Google News the top item was Christopher Booker’s superb analysis of the Climategate scandal,” writes James Delingpole.
“It’s still the most-read article of the Telegraph’s entire online operation – 430 comments and counting – yet mysteriously when you try the same search now it doesn’t even feature. Instead, the top-featured item is a blogger pushing Al Gore’s AGW agenda. Perhaps there’s nothing sinister in this. Perhaps some Google-savvy reader can enlighten me.”
Another blogger noted how other versions of the article appeared, but the original had been “disappeared,” despite the fact that other London Telegraph articles showed up as the top ranked result when entering their headline.
“That is using the search string: “Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation” – which is the full headline of the piece. It shows up where it has been quoted in full by other sites, but of the Booker column there is no sign,” writes Richard North.
In addition, searches for previous Christopher Brooker articles show up as top links – it’s only this particular article that has seemingly been targeted for censorship.
The same de-listing of the article is evident on other major search engine websites like Bing and Yahoo.
Despite the fact that Google has been caught gaming its search results in the past, this is more likely an “inside job” as it were.
It appears as if one of the editors at the Telegraph has gone into the backend of the Telegraph content management system and checked an option that prevents search engines from indexing a particular article.
“My guess is that this isn’t a Google issue. The problem probably lies closer to home – there looks to be an enemy in the camp, who has probably been using this, or something like it,” writes North, referring to a code that is inserted into a web page in order to block it from being ’spidered’. This is sometimes done to prevent site ripping and other hacks, but it also has the effect of barring search engines from being able to list the page in their results.
The fact that this has been applied to just this one article suggests that some higher-up at the Telegraph from the warmist camp was concerned about how the article had gone viral and wanted to contain its spread.
The fact that this attempt at sabotage has become a story within itself will probably only mean Brooker’s article will be read by more people, so the whole ruse has backfired.
Given that the infamous hockey stick graph has since been discredited, and is no longer used by the IPCC, why is it that so many people still believe that the AGW data are correct? It seems to be simply a matter of faith. For me, and other sceptics, AGW is just a load of CoCC (Church of Climate Change).
This is a distressing story, and I think that the root is actually a deeper evil. That is the politicising of science in general. Good science should be objective and should be approached without an expectation of outcome. To get funding to carry out research now, scientists must write shockingly journalistic proposals with statements of probable impact and outcome of the research. This is a flawed system, where researchers are rewarded for speculation and glamour and not for integrity or objectivity. It does not surprise me that in this climate of speculative competition for funding and promotion, scientists resort to 'massaging' data to fit their 'impact statements'. We must get back to a system where researchers can take a considered and objective approach, and where funding is not linked to government agenda.
Global warming is a fraud; CO2 can be taxed but has no effect on Global warming. Its a political movement to tell us how to live and to take our money which will not help to stop pollution. CO2 is not a pollutant!!
CLIMATEGATE should be on every news headline, discussion; there should be complete outrage in mainstream news - but since there is not then we can assume there is a concerted effort to ignore and push through more control on this CO2 emissions control bull.
"I don't think anyone is doubting that changes are occurring" Kim L 10.13
No,things ARE NOT changing. The temperature line is static, flat. There is no hockey stick line of global warming.
I am absolutely stunned at the lack of coverage on the main TV channels. Instead they seem to want to talk about sea levels rising and other doomsday scenarios. This is absolutely disgusting and must stop please if you have the time make a formal complaint to the BBC at http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/homepage/ this has to be stopped immediately. They are lying to us just as they lie about everything. Even this scandal they have decided to just put their heads in the sand. DT i hope you continue to run an unbiased opinion during the Copenhagen event.
However inclined I might be towards the author's seemingly justified massive scepticism towards the AGW cult, I find it difficult to justify throwing my hat into the ring of someone who thinks that he's going to be floated off to heaven by carbon-neutral fairies when he kicks the bucket, and who thinks that women were created out of some dust and a spare rib.
Over the last week I have followed the progress of Climategate via the DT editorial and comments, plus I have followed some of the numerous links.
There is no doubt a problem of clarity and confidence and those leaning towards conspiracy theories have posed thoughts on One World Government and a Communist /Marxist plot.
I wish here to offer an alternative scenario for these events and my reasons.
WHAT IF PEAK OIL IS VALID
If peak oil is valid
This would explain why suddenly 62 countries and their heads of state are rushing to attend Copenhagen.
If peak oil is valid
This explains the wild panic to reduce use of energy resources claimed to be producing Co2
If peak oil is valid
This explains the final rush, perhaps too late, towards nuclear as the only viable energy source.
If peak oil is valid
This explains the mad rush to electric cars, bearing in mind that current cars provide a major government revenue stream via fuel, road tax , parking, speeding etc.
If peak oil is valid
This explains why a new North South rail link is being proposed to maintain our transport infrastructure. (Note Warren Buffet has just bought a railroad)
If peak oil is valid
It explains why Iran has decided to build 10 nuclear processing plants as an investment when their oil runs out.
I could go on but the above items are all pause for thought since no government is going to admit to peak oil which would cause the World Trade, Western Economies and the world as we know it to collapse, leading to wars and a zero standard of living with much suffering and many many lives lost.
Perhaps Copenhagen could be valid but surely the whole world deserves the truth, so that balanced rather than emotive solutions are found for our world..
10:00 1_12_09
scrambled-eggs : I don't think anyone is doubting that changes are occurring . What people , quite rightly , are doubting is that human action is having any significant effect - the hard science says no - it's not . People are then questioning , again quite rightly , the expenditure of large amounts of money on preventative actions that will have no result .
Its very like the CFC issue - large amounts spent with no result achieved - the size of the Antarctic ozone hole has remained unchanged .
The other issue is all the people who are making huge amounts of money on climate issue - follow the paper trail - that's the incentive - not the environment .
I remember early 1970's the sky is falling due to global cooling. Despite my leftoid friends in Hollywood, when I mentioned this (as they are a bit younger) they just ignored me. This climate warming and man is the gorilla, all has been a hoax. We all wish to be good stewards of our environment and many of the changes and rules for companies is good - but to think that scientiest are now manipulating all for their greed and gain truly is sad.
As I always say, follow the money. Al Gore truly represents the lowest kind of man - as well as those scientiests who should be banned from further research. A total disgrace, but when greed is your god then you will do anything to line your pockets - all of these people are dishonest and lack character.
Cheers to the British media for covering Climategate with utmost importance. Our lousy American media is already under control of the powers that be. Keep it up, we're reading
Good job, excellent analysis, many lights in this information in front of this ocean of media lie. Everything becomes more clear now.
The BBC is still reporting from a parallel universe where no harry_read_me file exists. Does "Nation speak truth unto nation" still at the BBC World Service - not, it would seem if it has anything to do with the worst scientific scandal of our generation - falsified global temperatures data, out and out lies about polar bear numbers, and a handful of greedy, irresponsible scientists lying and bullying to make carbon trading companies richer and more powerful.
And certainly nothing on the publicly-funded domestic BBC. How long is this outrageous suppression to continue, of a subject that affects all of us paying your salaries at the BBC? Until after world governments have signed emissions trading commitments, based on "massaged" data? How would that be in the public interest?
There's an excellent CBC documentary on AGW now available on You Tube called "Global Warming Doomsday Called Off". It's from 2004 but was only uploaded two months ago. Have a look before some AGW alarmist tries to remove it.
AGW is a hoax folks, and always has been!!!!!
Tony said "It's ridiculous to go on being a skeptic of a matter that is scientifically settled"
Alright, find me a climate scientist who's said "It's okay, there's no point in paying me to do any research next year, the science is settled"...
Anyone who says a subject is "scientifically settled" is not a scientist. There is *always* something more to discover about something.
And anyone who says a subject is "settled" where the climate models consistently fail to even get close to forecasting climate correctly, where "we can't explain the lack of warming and it's a travesty that we can't", and where the data has been adjusted to fit the theory rather than the theory to the data is just an out and out crook who is either trying to change the world His Way or make money out of us - or both.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
The falsification of data and the conspiracy to commit same etc, constitutes serious criminal activity. Further, the granting of public funds for research warrants a federal investigation. I’m hoping the perpetrators, including possibly Professor Michael Mann, director of Pennsylvania State University’s Earth System Science Centre and a regular contributor to the popular climate science blog Real Climate, and their facilitators will be tracked down and prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows. -- Michael Santomauro
Piltdown man made climate change! :)
"It is sad that the integrity of all the hard work and good science that the world's researchers have compiled is threatened by the mistakes of one group."
The data these hard-working scientists have been working with is bent, Keith Hodson.
Or should I say that the data has been "quality controlled"?
The fundamental mistake being made in these erudite discussions is the assumption that carbon dioxide, when released into the atmosphere in large quantities, actually stays there.
Carbon dioxide and water form carbonic acid, whose concentration will rise as a function of the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere. In this way, carbon becomes trapped in the ocean.
This is all well and fine, except the ocean's acidity increases (the pH goes down), with potentially disastrous consequences for life forms, such as coral reefs, sensitive to such things. As go the coral reefs, so go the fish that depend upon them for spawning grounds, and so go the lives of th e people and other predators who feed on these fish.
Whether global change is man made or not, the last 100 years have seen enormous changes to glaciers in the polar regions and in the mountainous tropics. Similar changes have occurred throughout history as glaciers have advanced and receded.
It seems to me Global Warming has become as contentious as the debate around Darwin and God. It is OK to doubt the validity of the science, supposedly testing man's role in these changes. However, if you are going to tell me there are fundamentally no changes happening, I have some time lapse glacier photos I'd like to share with you. Irrelevant, poorly designed, experiments in a bottle may be conducted from now until the costal populations of Asia starve and/or drown, but no one told the glaciers or the coral reefs about the results.
This so so so so very boring - I have said all this from day one...
Politicians...crooks? Don't be so naive it's an essential part of the CV.
For Jacob A:
***************
Seems as though none of the news outlets really want to draw a lot of attention to it. I wonder why?
*************************
Which of the timid people in the crowd wants to take a chance and be the first to shout that the Emperor is wearing no new clothes?
I think google is compromised now, we see this more and more.
Wikipedia.org is surely filtering info. for agenda.
Great article! Climategate must not be whitewashed. Incidentally, who was responsible for this article being de-listed on google?
Follow the money. The new one world government needs funds and leaders. I guess Big Al has decided the world government can be won with "global warming" instead of the popular vote. Obama and Clinton are probably promised seats in the new world order as well. Doesn't take a lot of brains to see beyond the headlines. Come on, make it harder to understand like a "hate crimes bill".
How I rejoice to finally see the truth coming out. "Climate Change" legislation is nothing more than a gigantic tax increase and power grab that they are attempting to hoist on us by deliberate & organized deception. These bas****s should all be tried under the RICO act and every politician who supports this crap run out of office.....and then try them all for treason for all the other unconstitutional crap they've been forcing on this country since the Usurper took office.
I pray we can last the three more years we must endure the Kenyan dictator-wannabe and his criminal administration.
Al Gore and the UN are crooks...
The carbon tax/climate change scheme is a cover for a flawed Peak Oil mitigation plan. Whenever you read about carbon trading and conservation initiatives, replace the premise with "peak oil" or "oil depletion" and give it a moment's thought. Considering the consequences of Peak Oil, it's no wonder they would keep it a secret while trying to hatch a scheme to force conservation of remaining crude oil reserves.
I am amazed at the number of commentators here who claim to be scientists, or to have a good understanding of science, and then go on to spout the same old pseudo-scientific nonsense that the fossil fuel companies have been paying people to say these past ten years. Go read the science, and then comment.
The global warming issue is one of several currents of disquiet running through our society at the present time. All of them, both the imagined and the real, are readily embraced by a population largely ignorant of their significance. I am thinking about issues such as the unification of Europe into a single state - a possibly totalitarian United Europe, the unease about the depletion of planetary resources ('fossil' fuels in particular, although there is no certainty that petroleum is a fossil fuel), and the perceived threat to our civilisation through uncontrolled immigration into Europe - to name just a few. The common characteristic in the Western States' reaction to these anxieties is a gradual, or perhaps even not so gradual, imposition of more and more restrictions, controls on behaviour, limitations on commonsense freedoms, the 'educating' of the population into new modes of behaviour, and the development of political correctness; all the while encouraging further malaise. This may be because democracy itself carries within its internal logic the seeds of its own demise. If this is the case the outlook is not optimistic - we will all end up in a prison like the one which the communist regimes remodelled out of Eastern Europe and elsewhere. Worse, because there will be no Free World to help us out this time - such regimes, I believe, are very stable provided that no interference occurs from the outside.
The 'global warming experience' we have been observing for many years now can be seen as a trial run. It is possible, even likely, that the idea will be soon dropped. Even then I not think that I will be able to raise a cheer. The malaise I am referring to runs deep. It will reassert itself through other, real or unreal, threats and other concerns such as resource depletion, pollution, nuclear energy, health, racism, equality - in fact, all areas which are fertile ground for secular fanaticism. The nightmare is probably yet to come.
It is a mistake to think that past communist regimes were not able to cope with dissent. They were. Just in the same way as the AGW alarmists were able to chug along quite happily for all these years, obtaining huge sums of money from governments, while constantly villifying and misrepresenting those who were genuinely seeking the truth. Despite well-agrued disagreement they gained acceptance, credibility and status in the process. The fact that this could happen at all is a witness to the dire state of our society. With a population already moulded into shape it would have been just a little step for Western governments acting in concert to declare a state of global emergency in order to control global warming. A few, or even many dissenters, would make no difference. With the level of ignorance in our society it is likely that the majority would not only accept government control of the media, censorship and the punishment of 'deniers' but would even welcome the measure with open arms. Complaints would not be entertained and Christophers Monckton and Booker would be locked up and possibly shot as 'enemies of humankind' in no time at all. The rest of us would then keep quiet. Even now this, or something similar, could still happen.
Is this all an exaggeration? I hope so.
Terrific article, Chris. It is indeed sobering that this small, tightly-insulated cabal of climatologists was on the verge of success in forcing the governments of the world to adopt runiously expensive cap & trade policies without the slightest shred of real proof that they would reduce global warming in the slightest. In fact the question of whether or not there is any warming going on at all, man-made or otherwise, is still very much an open one.
Thank God that someone at either the CRU or the Hadley Center couldn't be a party to the lies any more and took the initiative to purloin those files and put them on the internet. Normally, I wouldn't condone computer theft. But in this case, the public's greater good has clearly been served by getting this can of worms finally opened up for public view.
If they ever find out who this person is, they should give him/her a medal and a fat pension. And if it can be proved that Profs. Jones, Mann et all willfully destroyed data and information in contravention of Freedom of Information Act requests, they should spend considerable time in jail.
I'm an American and I'm rather surprised at this. Not at the article itself, I'd always suspected Climate change to turn out to be a sham in one way or another, but at the fact that this has barely been reported in the states or at least nothing that I've seen. Seems as though none of the news outlets really want to draw a lot of attention to it. I wonder why?
Loosing a job means loss of security, independance, dignity, depression, possible drug and alcohol abuse and not to mention marital strain and spousal abuse. To these lying acedimics and politicians job loss is just an acceptable fact that we will have to live with. People better wake up before it is your job that is lost due to the environment lies.
It will be interesting to see if this is the start of a sea change in public awareness, or just a temporary blip in the cult like belief in man made global warming/climate change. Now is the time to wake up people, the future of your descendants is at stake.
In most of the places I have lived on Earth, a 20-30 degree F temperature change each day is not unusual. Anyone who REALLY believes it is possible to detect a 1.25 degree F temperature variation in the climate of the ENTIRE Earth over 100+ years, should conduct a simple experiment. Try to measure the temperature of a 10 acre plot of land (that is not a barren parking lot) over a period of 24 hours within one degree F.
The scientists I have worked with are simply humans, some are loyal to their discipline, others are loyal to their paymasters.
The belief in Mann made global warming/climate change is an indicator that overlooks the larger phenomena, and IMO, more interesting of human nature.
For a decade or more, a very large percentage of otherwise intelligent and educated people in the Western Hemisphere, chose to ignore the obvious distortions and the unrealistic accuracy in the global warming data, and chose to believe that "humans are evil and are destroying the planet!"
Is this an indicator of the self-hatred so often on display in current Western Cultures?
I think the Elliott Wave proponents are right, when people are outside their area of expertise (or they just don't want to think - my view), they tend to shut of their brains and run with the herd.
It appears to be part of human nature, that people enjoy both seeking out life-altering drama, and desiring saviors to pull them back from the brink of disaster.
"The reason so many people misunderstand so many issues is not that these issues are so complex, but that people do not want a factual or analytical explanation that leaves them emotionally unsatisfied. They want villains to hate and heroes to cheer-- and they don't want explanations that do not give them that." - Thomas Sowell
Winds of Change: Cap’n Jones and his Cru knew all along that they were on a lee shore. Then their worst fears came to pass and honour now demands that the Cap’n must go down with his ship. Yo, ho, ho and a bottle of … ‘In an odd way this is cheering news’.
To Patrick on November 30, 2009 at 04:40 PM
I concur.
Hang on, Will Heaven's saying quite the opposite over here http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/willheaven/100018240/climategate-wont-make-global-warming-go-away-despite-what-delingpole-tells-you/
Don't worry, warmers, there's always something to panic about, like getting hit with a giant asteroid. All this stuff is promoted to keep our eyes off the ball, like the Federal Reserve Bank, the IMF, and the World Fund, which are set up to impoverish the U.S., and spread the wealth of prosperous nations around the world so that EVERYONE is equally miserable - isn't that fair, after all?
"Truth has no place in a World that is ruled by Superstition and Tribal Folklore" --- Nicolas Copernicus 1542 ---
Just because this group was interested in fame, money and power doesn't mean all the other Climate Change scientist are.
But Manbearpig IS real. I'm so super cereal and nobody believes me! Oh boo hoo hoo. Why won't anybody take me cereally, god dammit!
The MSM is failing us as usual.
Big coal/oil will still be replaced by renewable energy. That part of the movement is still necessary.
Great article! Thank you.
Get to the bottom of it: follow the money. Who is getting grants, how much, when, who owns shares in anything that can benefit by this fraud? Who is getting free trips to all these conferences? Who gets to stay in all the fancy hotels, with per diems? Then you will see more clearly where all this is coming from.
The socialist "Scientific Establishment" has been caught with their hands in the cookie jar. With this single action, they have destroyed their credibility as objective scientist. They need to be forever stripped of their teaching positions and roles as credible scientist. It is time for "the people" to pressure the universities and the politicians to have these vermin removed. If you don't, they will continue their political influence over you, the taxpayer, and pay you will.......
The socialist "Scientific Establishment" has been caught with their hands in the cookie jar. With this single action, they have destroyed their credibility as objective scientist. They need to be forever stripped of their teaching positions and roles as credible scientist. It is time for "the people" to pressure the universities and the politicians to have these vermin removed. If you don't, they will continue their political influence over you, the taxpayer, and pay you will.......
Al Gore deserves another Nobel Prize - this one in economics. This one for discovering "Gore's Law":
$ = BS x Chutzpah.
Extra large bulls work best.
Now that the global warming nonsense has been shown to be what it is, the gov' and the press will try to suppress it all by saying the information was obtained illegally. The perpetrators will skate and we will pay.
I totally believe in clean air to breathe, but the man-made scam that is being perpetrated is going to make Bernie Madoff look like a beginner.
Climate change? Yes......the Earth is a living breathing being in and of itself. The continenets are still moving, Old Faithfull still spews and volcanoes, abotu 20,000 of them are under the Atlantic, warming us out of the ice age.
In another couple of thousand years, we'll start to really freeze our keisters off for the next ice age.
Gore and his cronies are scamming the entire planet to make a buck. Hollywood ass kissers are following suit.
Soooo, what is the answer? How do we stop these scams from killing all Earthly economies?
I don't have the answer, I wish I did.
Shall more hurricane & flooding sweep the idiots away.
Global warming is an Economic/financial tool.
The leaked emails were probably Russia's or China's way of saying fuck off.
The last glacial period was about 12,500 years ago so we have been in a global warming ever since. What caused the change 12,500 years ago? I guess Al Gore would know! Without global warming my state would be under about 5,000 feet of ice. No Glacier national Park or New York City. It's all a natural cycle so what the hell is all the fuss?
Leftists:
Please refer to Richard Nixon's playbook to determine how to deal with this.
(by the way, I fail to see why just because one believes in global warming (as I do) that it follows that I should believe in the falisification of scientific data for political purposes.
But hey, I guess that just makes me a nutball.
"Consensus" is strictly politics not science. 2500 wrong and 1 honest climatoligist getting it right means the 2500 grant whores are wrong...
The campaign by the right-wing to 'expose' global warming as a left-wing invention is really rather tiresome. Oh and please note that I refer to 'global warming' and not simply 'climate change' - the two terms are not necessarily interchangeable.
This is about the survival of civilization, and large numbers of us as we are dependent on civilization for survival. We don't have resources to waste on problems that don't exist. This nonsense must stop, but it won't. Shame really.
And Obama is off to Copenhagen to continue the sell out with his only comment that he trusts his science advisors.
Somebody needs to tell the UN that they are toast, have no credibility and the hoax is now dead.
Then order criminal investigations against the scientist for fraud, conspiracy etc....
George Carlin made a good point about goverment's. If they tell you any thing at all DO NOT believe it.I just hope people will finaly start doing something about this problem of lying politicians and perpetrating scam after scam on the public first it was the cold war we were always told as kids we are in danger . then the war on drugs eveery one should be scared of the crazy pot heads they will rob you to by more dorito's that didnt take so then the war on terror . another waste of lives and money and freedom's lost to anti terror laws. still we didnt scare enough . so now the sky is falling and the earth is gonna burn. well that didnt work to well either did it. I personaly am still waiting for the we need more money and more of your freedom to fight the U,F,O, alien menace story they will probably try when all else fails. If we fall for any more of thier crap now it is OUR OWN fault
It is sad that the integrity of all the hard work and good science that the world's researchers have compiled is threatened by the mistakes of one group.
I will never understand the inherent fear of change that plagues this country.
Why has the number of comments just dropped from 998 to 872? Have we hit a 1k issue and broken the system? :-)
--Your head in the sand, science denying nonsense does you no credit - Richard
Is it science to adjust data to fit your theories?
Is it science to not bother to check papers that get the 'right' answer (like that they're got their sediment data the right way up this time)?
Is it science to conspire to get papers rejected solely because they cast doubt on your "settled consensus"?
It is science to refuse to show your data or working so other scientists can replicate your analysis?
Is it science to lie to the world about what's happening ("imagine the fuss if we told the world that it's cooling - it is...").
Is it science? No, it's not. So who are the real deniers here...?
RE: Samuel D'Arcangelis, Ph.D.
What a read: hilarious were it not for its stunning stupidity. Let’s take a look.
• “In 1994, when I received my degree, there was no such thing as a climate scientist.”
Well, Sam, scientists, geologists for example, began asking questions about the influence of climate way back in the 1830s when Louis Agassiz advanced the Ice Age theory. By 1896 Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius calculated the effect of a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would increase surface temperatures by 5 to 6 degrees Celsius. So really Sam, there has long been an abiding scientific interest in climate processes.
Now about putting your “qualifications up against ‘san quentin’, or pretty much anyone else”. Why the heck would you want take on a prison? Lordy, lordy! And, your not being able “to understand an explanation in excruciating detail”, was well, quite frankly an excruciating read.
To continue. You write, “I have seen precisely zero evidence that global warning is an artifice of Mankind.” How does a person see “precisely zero evidence”? And “artifice of Mankind”, you’re certainly being tricky here.
Now we come to the so-called “false assumption” hokey pokey. Sam doesn’t deny that both carbon dioxide and the global human population have both been increasing simultaneously: a clear correlation. But because he doesn’t like the potential causal implication he conveniently brands it a “false correlation.” And who ever heard of a “false correlation” becoming “weaker” over time. How does something false become falser? ARGH!
To spare the reader’s sanity, and my own I’ll part with this. Sam, methinks you lost more than just a few brain cells breathing in all those fluoropolymers while toiling away for Dupont and AGC Chemicals.
"So many of the 'climate change' protagonitst seem to confuse global warming (not in dispute) with man-made global warming (no solid evidence whatsoever). The climate has been getting hotter, but it is not clear why"
Well, yes and no. The climate has been getting generally hotter since about 1700 or so, peaked in the 1930s, cooled until 1970, rose until 1998 and then cooled a bit. But exactly what it's done this century isn't exactly clear as the data has been well fiddled with, sorry, quality-controlled, mostly to cool the past records to create a warming trend.
So it has got warmer (from 1900 to 1935 and 1970 to 1998) but we're not quite sure how much. And it got much warmer before that from all the CO2 those sailing ships and steam engines were producing...
great article. How many other facets of public policy are similarly rigged ?
- financial institutions and the bail-out (uk &USA) for example, or
- European gov's electing their own leader, without ref to the people... not democratic perfection, is it ?
- The direction laws are heading with regards to our freedom & liberty, using the terror umbrella to blatantly overwrite centuries of personal freedoms 'for our own good'... George Orwell was spot on.
- War outside europe ? Very little to do with national security/defense , but huge $ all round and political manoeuvering. Notice how afghan poppy production is up despite the current [medium-to-long] military activity.
military-pharma-industrial-media complex hand-in-hand with the state wherever you look.
- gm food
- mass media complicity ...
safety-certificated courses for construction that ostensably protect, but actually remove responsablity from employers and conaccidents become the fault of the employee,]
As an american I would like to officially apologize for Egor,oops,Igor I mean Al gore
StephenW on November 30, 2009 at 11:20 PM
"There need be only one rule to get to the bottom of this sort of thing - follow the money."
You mean like this, Stephen?
"Carbon trading could be worth twice that of oil in next decade
The carbon market could become double the size of the vast oil market, according to the new breed of City players who trade greenhouse gas emissions through the EU's emissions trading scheme."
Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/carbon-trading-market-copenhagen-summit
Now, what was that theory that the AGW sceptics were only taking that line because they were funded by the evil oil companies, as opposed to the noble 'True Believers' who were only doing it for our own good, without even the slightest sniff of pecuniary advantage?
Thank goodness that was all a scam! Now I'm off to buy my new Hummer!
George Carlin made a good point about goverment's. If they tell you any thing at all DO NOT believe it.I just hope people will finaly start doing something about this problem of lying politicians and perpetrating scam after scam on the public first it was the cold war we were always told as kids we are in danger . then the war on drugs eveery one should be scared of the crazy pot heads they will rob you to by more dorito's that didnt take so then the war on terror . another waste of lives and money and freedom's lost to anti terror laws. still we didnt scare enough . so now the sky is falling and the earth is gonna burn. well that didnt work to well either did it. I personaly am still waiting for the we need more money and more of your freedom to fight the U,F,O, alien menace story they will probably try when all else fails. If we fall for any more of thier crap now it is OUR OWN fault ..
They are even telling us on T V ads to do 5 miles a day less in our cars in order to save the world, what a load of Bull that is. Every time they send one of those space shuttles up it throws out more crap than 10million cars could in TEN years on top of that they are launching a satalite every five minutes and how many nucular bombs have been tested in the last five decades and they have the ordacity to tax the population to help save the planet. I read some 20 odd years ago that the earths orbit was changing by a fraction every year this means that when the earth orbits the sun it gets closer, result, it is warmer and as its orbit away from the sun gets further its getting colder. This is a very small planet and I am convinced that the imbalance was caused by those dammed bombs, the blame for all this lies at the feet of world leaders so why should we pay for somthing even they have no chance of rectifying. WHAT CON
I have observed since I was a little boy that in the Northern Hemisphere, as we approach May and June, the weather gets warmer. Moving from a temperate region to the desert, I have observed that it is generally a much hotter place to live. Imagine that. Then, as October and November roll around, the weather changes again. The days grow shorter and because there is less sun exposure, things cool off. Imagine that.
As we do not have remote control of the (our) sun's daily activity, I have learned, with many others, that changes in the sun's surface activity can have an impact on the temperature on earth. I believe this can be verified, scientifically.
Then, during my lifetime, the earth's human population has increased about three fold, to a staggering 6 billion. So, we consume more and create our own impact on the atmosphere through simple functions, like driving and cooking.
To conclude, I have learned this: when the sun comes up, we have global warming; when the sun goes down, we have global cooling.
I figured that out on my own.
I will burn many old tires in my back field tomorrow in celebration of the end of this charade.
Mr. Booker: brilliant and at this point 921 comments published, hence widespread readership. Hopefully the next hoax after this global climate change horsehockey won't be as expensive nor as tedious... but still as fruitful for journalists seeking truth. Well done.
Why is this not headline news?
Official Fraud!
2006 Fraud Act. Three key topics.
False representation.
Failing to disclose information
Abuse of position
over the past 20 years we have seen the death of scrutiny/accountability/honesty and the rise of official lies and cover ups. We need to Challenge everything especially biased news coverage
This columnist has gathered together a list of some of the comments in the harry read-me file. I include a few...
Just the stuff to save the world.
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2009/11/29/11967916-sun.html
- "COBAR AIRPORT AWS (data from an Australian weather station) cannot start in 1962, it didn't open until 1993!" (71)
- "What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah -- there is no 'supposed,' I can make it up. So I have : - )" (98)
- "You can't imagine what this has cost me -- to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO (World Meteorological Organization) codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a 'Master' database of dubious provenance ..." (98)
- "So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option -- to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations ... In other words what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad ..." (98-9)
- "OH F--- THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done, I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases." (241).
- "This whole project is SUCH A MESS ..." (266)
The thing that worriez me is that the ice is really high up in Antartica and i know, at those altidues water boilz at a lower temperature (this is a fact do not tell me its not!) but, also,ice meltz at a lower temperature too because less nrg meltz it.That meanz it will take only a small temperature increase to melt the ice there. It makez sense because the higher up, the ice is purer (there is no pollution up there ),and still you bozos wont listen!!!!
There need be only one rule to get to the bottom of this sort of thing - follow the money.
How about this, we pass a law that no one is allowed to make one dime on global warming. Picture roaches scattering when the light gets turned on.
Why is this not headline news?
Official Fraud!
2006 Fraud Act. Three key topics.
False representation.
Failing to disclose information
Abuse of position
over the past 20 years we have seen the death of scrutiny/accountability/honesty and the rise of official lies and cover ups. We need to Challenge everything especially biased news coverage
I see the author of this article is selling a book about this! hmmm, who's zooming who?
I still like my air cleaner than we're leaving it.
So many of the 'climate change' protagonitst seem to confuse global warming (not in dispute) with man-made global warming (no solid evidence whatsoever). The climate has been getting hotter, but it is not clear why. It is also unclear whether we are heading for another ice age or a period of elevated temperatures.
Don't be fooled by the hype. There are a lot of people making a lot of money from the climate change illusion.
The coutryside around the Himalaya's used to be covered in moisture giving forests which pumped water into the air which then precipitated as snow on the slopes. Deforestation has stripped the countryside eliminating the water source for the snow. Less snow means, well, less snow. It has nothing to do with the tempurature.
At the root of things: who needed and paid for an IPCC when there was the well established UNEP?
Various 'conspiracy driven' websites have been drawing attention to this scam for years.It's an excuse to form a one world government allegedly to fight the climate change together.
It all finishes in Copenhagen this month doesn't it with Obama signing away American Sovereignty.
A bunch of lies.
Climategate must expose the global elite who wish to destroy our beautiful nations and turn them into a dictatorial one world government that wishes to enslave it's own people and destroy freedom. Climategate must be exposed!
what the?? the picture for the story have STEAM coming out of the stacks! with a caption of Co2 emissions!! lol, good ol media!! They can’t even get the facts right!! They are the first liars in this scandal!! So misleading they are
Booker tells the truth, politicians lie.
Oh yes. The NASA crowd makes one feel good? Remember the O-rings?
Ignorance fuels the hysteria surrounding Man Made Global Warming and your article has an excellent if unintended example of how this ignorance is exploited. The article includes a photo with a tag line regarding CO2 outputs. The photo shows massive plumes of implied CO2 "greenhouse gases" spewing into the air from implied industrial smokestacks. The average (read ignorant) reader views the photo and becomes concerned about all this "carbon" gas. In reality, the photo is of cooling towers, not exhaust towers. The clouds of gas being released are of condensation, aka water vapor, not a fossil-fuel derived carbon emission. It is ironic since water vapor is actually the most important greenhouse gas. Too bad the people following these charlatins have never taken a second to read a science book or they would have learned that science is not based on consenus, but rather on replication and falsifiabilty. It only takes ONE study to repute and show false the theory supported by "2500 scientists" and any number of studies they have supporting MMGW. Science is not a popularity contest,nor a marketting campaign, and is not intended to be decided by a bunch of ignorant politicians and there even more ignorant populations!
ITV News at Ten has just done a 5 minute slot on the glaciers melting in the Himalayas.
So who is telling the truth ?
It's absolutely fantastic to see not only the article but all these comments in favour of the article. All is not lost. Not everyone is asleep and falling for the AGW nonsense hook, line and sinker. This matter needs to be dicussed more and more in the mainstream and not left to rot on the sides while the politicians and other globalists use it to impose even more taxes and gain even more control over our lives.
Totalitarian sociopaths tend to have a pseudo-science to further their agenda. That's all AGW really is.
Your head in the sand, science denying nonsense does you no credit. You would still believe in the flat earth if you could get away with it. So sad.
Gee 955 comments so far and probably 90% declaring the trick and illogical policy of MMGW as both false and illegal.
I just wanted to express my concern about BBC news, CH 3 news and BBC Panorama all CONTINUING TO PEDDLE MMGW and not a mention of the storm over the validity of the science and conclusions.
The DT has some MMGW articles but the comments are very critical of this stand and put the record straight.
This process is the worst for of INDOCTRINATION in advance of Copenhagen.
Somehow those who understand the truth and the need for a proper open discussion, must find a voice before Copenhagen
The alternative for all of us to vote BNP to get a voice will however be a disaster.
22.20 30_11_09
Well done, Mr Booker. Your column is the main reason I take the Sunday Telegraph - it reveals many shocking goings-on, not just in Global warming, that most other commentators ignore. Good luck with your book.
Great story Christopher.
The biggest scam in history is about to crumble.
I wonder why the lead picture shows cooling towers leaking steam and refers the subject to CO2? Normally one expects this scene to be held up as an example of escaping radio active waste!
I see that the medical profession is now getting in on the act. A new body 'The Climate and Health Council' a world wide health organisation includingthe Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Physisians and the Royal Society of Medicine believes there is a connection between climate change and health. It claims that climate change 'threatens to radically undermine the health of all peoples.' Another Prof, this time Mike Gill of the Uni of Surrey who is cochairman of the council said, "Climate change already affects human health, creating problems that will increase if no action is taken" I wonder how much extra this new group of climate experts is going to cost us. Can't blame them though for jumping on the bandwaggon. At the very least there should be a few seats available at the Copenhagen jolley for the Prof and his cohorts. The only way I can think that this can affect the health of people is the way the warmists are trying to scare the shit out of people by predicting the forthcoming armageddon. I wonder if the Prof knows that the earth has been cooling down for the past ten years?
AmericanGypsie on November 30, 2009 at 08:19 PM
Read your links.
"In 1944, St. Roch returned to Vancouver via the more northerly route of the Northwest Passage, making her run in 86 days."
http://www.hnsa.org/ships/stroch.htm
Yes, Jim McKenna! MANY people who were previously trusting of the media and politicians totally IGNORED the earlier 'smoking guns' of AGW like Maurice Strong's statement that they had to find a way to collapse the industrial economy to 'save the planet', (mother Gaia).
With Climategate the sleepers have awakened and they have MUCH more to consider than these recent emails to fully comprehend the DEPTH, the long history and the puppet masters of this socialist/commie fraud.
Also, with the new admission by the CRU that they intentionally destroyed/lost the original temperature data, in one fell swoop, they declared that we must accept their 'adjusted data' on faith alone.
Such is definitely NOT science!
Without doubt Global Warming is a scam, best proof is the new "title" for those who dont agree...now wait for it.. DENIER...has a certain totalitarian ring to it dont you think?.
"The powers that be" knew that mankind was fast waking up to paying many illegal and fraudulent taxes, and would soon reach a point when they refused to do so.
Answer? well how about brainwashing the increasingly (deliberately) dumbed down western nations into a loathing self hatred of guilt for damaging the planet, and then selling the notion that if we pay for our "carbon footprint" we will all be absolved. Remember, a succesfull tax is one where the sheeple are happy to pay .
The truth is out there as Scullder would have said, from 19th century trappers diaries recording odd weather conditions to the fact that in the mid 19th century we had a massive temperature rise for 25 years that neccesitated new furniture and house design to be made (as discussed recently on Antiques Roadshow). Are we really this gullible?..and if so then perhaps we deserve to be treated as children.
The last tiny vestige of Climaregate on the BBC website has gone-- to be replaced by this-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8362831.stm
The Science Museum is holding a vote for their "Prove It" petition that they propose forwarding to the government as proof that people support the Global Warming agenda in Copenhagen next week. If you want to voice your objection here's your chance by voting "Out".
Good science is the art of disproving current theory....Problem solved...Ladies and Gentleman you are bearing witness to one of the greatest dubious application of politics corrupting the science of science...Be of good cheer. truth has won the day...
Why oh why is the news so silent on this major deception? And they say there is no conspiracy to control the news! When are we going to wake up?
Good science is the art of disproving current theory....Problem solved...Ladies and Gentleman you are bearing witness to one of the greatest dubious application of politics corrupting the science of science...Be of good cheer. truth has won the day...
I can't help wondering whether Macavity is hiding under the table with wet trousers wondering how he is going to prevent all the carbon credits becoming worthless before the Tories get in.
There appears to have been some media management (to put it mildly) going on. Even the Telegraph has been showing a warmist leaning recently. It just shows how out of control the political left has become.
Mind you, this is a complicated area, and so those whose education only includes easy subjects such as politics, economics, or media studies, and not Maths and Science, probably find the whole thing a turn off and prefer to take the easy way out. (Why change the habit of a lifetime.) Moreover, a lot of the warmist propaganda is very well crafted and though neat, plausible, and wrong, it is seductively believable by the uncritical mind. In addition, there is a heavy mob deployed to bully waverers.
Perhaps warm mongers would like to chew over the idea that heat will only flow from warm to cold. It will not flow in the other direction, or we would be able to warm a cold room with a colder radiator. Warm air rises wherever possible. As it rises it cools and becomes cooler than the Earth. The lower part of the atmosphere is warmer than the upper part. So heat in the atmosphere will not flow downwards to the warmer Earth. However, space is cooler than the atmosphere, so where will heat go? Think about it. Then review Professor Lindzen's work.
If you are then still pro warmist, please present your real evidence that there is more than an insignificant amount of AGW, and of an increased warming in the atmosphere, and collect your Nobel prize.
Well at least we have one honest politician in Copenhagen challenging the establishment lies, if they ever let him speak.
Since he is going as an elected British MEP, the only one to challenge them, no doubt he will be drowned out with cries of 'wacist'.
Did anyone see the Channel 4 propaganda show on the news this evening, re Climate Change?
No mention of the word 'Con'.
Why not on main tv news? And they say there is no conspiracy to control the news!
Chukk wrote "Amazing, one small group of researchers who may or may not have fudged data"
(No, they absolutely fudged the data, that's why this blog has nearly 1000 comments and counting. Where is evidence for the 'may not'?)
"...discounts the independently performed research of more than one thousand other scientists?"
(No, it was dependently performed research, nearly all IPCC data was based on the fudged data, including quotes from the White House Science Czar, meaning we have to SCRAP IT ALL).
So all the losers out there who were willing to lie and cheat and steal "to save the Earth" can all go to hell.
--"I would accept the generally agreed 0.6 degree C increase in global temperatures over the last century,"
Depends where you start, of course. Temperatures rose to 1934 or so, then fell to about 1970 then rose until 1998 then fell through to about now. We think. It's a bit hard to tell as the data revisionists have been busy! There seems a strong possibility that 1998 was no warmer than 1934 and possibly even cooler. It also seems likely that the rises in the 18th and 19th century were much larger than those in the 20th.
But we don't know because the data has been fudged about so much - and then details of the raw data and the fudging have been hidden, refused or just plain lost. But what data we do have (see the New Zealand and Scandinavia data issues on WUWT) suggests there simply hasn't been any warming past the "natural" (pre global industrialisation) levels of the 1930s.
What is happening to the comments? Just saw 953, refreshed and the number went down to 824 (21:11 Hrs). Not the first time they have gone down, I might add ... how many did you manage to lose yesterday?
Is it that important to you that you should keep Booker's piece as low profile as you can manage it?
Speaking of which, why doesn't this piece show up on Google News?
Posted at 21:15 ... let's see if you publish it. If not, it goes on the blog.
G. Tingey "Who profits from trying to ensure that Global Warming, especially the man-made version, is discounted ...?
Big Oil & Big Coal. "
--------------
FALSE! Big oil and big coal are being PAID OFF by the alarmists. If you think 79 BILLION dollars spent by the US government alone over the last 20 years doesn't include incentives to get big energy on board with their fascist plans then you are very very naive. Both industries will earn 'carbon credits' for selling LESS product which they can then sell via Wall Street to you and me to 'allow' us to take a trip on an airplane or have our food delivered to the local store via truck. Thinking that big energy is on the side of climate realists is FALSE and a total ruse by climate alarmists.
FACT - There remains exactly ZERO empirical evidence that human CO2 contributes in any measurable amount to global warming.
There used to be some interesting correlations with the data but now we hear them claiming that the original data was destroyed, (the dog ate my homework). So how do we actually know that they actually even used that data in the first place? They already admitted to 'hide the decline' - WHAT ELSE HAVE THEY HIDDEN?
To anyone who STILL trusts Phil Jones who has collected over $20 million in grants to continue his fraudulent enterprise - I have a bridge to sell to you, (I'll even attach your name to it, ok?).
A veteran meteorologist, Anthony Watts, had reason to doubt the reliability of US Surface Temperature Records so he founded www.surfacestations.org and set out to audit 1,221 weather stations operated by the National Weather service.
After surveying over 70% of those sations, he issued a report that states:
“(W)e found that 89 percent of the stations—nearly 9 of every 10—fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source. In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited.” (Pg. 1) The report concludes, “the raw temperature data produced by the USHCN stations are not sufficiently accurate to use in scientific studies or as a basis for public policy decisions.” (Pg. 17)
It gets worse. We observed that changes in the technology of temperature stations over time also has caused them to report
a false warming trend. We found major gaps in the data record that were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice
that propagates and compounds errors. We found that adjustments to the data by both NOAA and another government
agency, NASA, cause recent temperatures to look even higher.
The conclusion is inescapable: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable.
About the author of the study:
About the Author
Anthony Watts is a 25-year broadcast meteorology veteran and currently chief meteorologist for KPAY-AM radio.
He got his start as on-air meteorologist for WLFI-TV in Lafayette, Indiana and at KHSL-TV in Chico, California. In
1987, he founded ItWorks, which supplies broadcast graphics systems to hundreds of cable television, television, and
radio stations nationwide. ItWorks supplies custom weather stations, Internet servers, weather graphics content, and
broadcast video equipment. In 2007, Watts founded SurfaceStations.org, a Web site devoted to photographing and
documenting the quality of weather stations across the U.S.
Garbage in, garbage out.
"Amazing, one small group of researchers who may or may not have fudged data discounts the independently performed research of more than one thousand other scientists"
What independent research? The other global temperature records are kept (and "adjusted") by the people on the other end of the emails in question. And guess what - none of them seemed the slightest bit concerned about fixing peer reviews, lying to the public to say there was no cooling, or deciding what data needed to look like after it had been "adjusted".
And of course all those other researchers then take their source data from the principal temperature records, never dreaming that they're about as reliable as a Labour referendum promise.
Of course sometimes these other researchers hit problems in trying to reconcile their raw data records (which show no warming) with the IPCC ones (who do). Only to be told their data must be wrong because CO2 has increased therefore there must have been warming.
You couldn't make it up. Scientists change theories to fit observations. These bozos change observations so that they fit the theory! But that's okay, because it's all in the holy cause of Saving the World.
There is no such thing as global warming. It's all a hoax. let's meet together in 20 years on the beach and show the world we were right! There is nothing to fear! Besides, if we're wronig and we could have done womthing about it, who cares? We'll all be dead anyway. Our grnadkids can just suck it up and handle the problem.
This is an outrage. Well done for reporting this when the other mass media are complicit in the deception.
As a secondary science teacher, I am appalled that I have to teach this rubbish to my classes.
I have written to my MP demanding an independent enquiry into this scandal. I suggest that other readers do the same or they will get away with it.
The CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) is also ignoring the climate-gate story. Not surprising, in ancient times astrologers were the "government scientists" who built the pyramids.
It was a boondoggle but they convinced the Pharoah that their "research" would enable them to make scientific predictions about the weather - they carefully aligned the pyramids to the stars only to discover that the stars "fall back" 1 degree every 72 years due to the wobble of the earth's axis (Precession of the Equinoxes). I maintain that the wobble is the chief cause of climate change, just as the tilt of the axis gives us summer and winter. Mind you, that's just another example of the kind of "inconvenient truth" that the Al Gore cult ignores!
"I'd like to land a carbon footprint on Al Gore's big fat arse."
..give him unprecedented warming in both hemispheres.
[with acknowledgements to an Alex strip from some years back!]
Remember, people: whether or not the theory of man-made global warming is or is not evenetually shown up to be a right load of bull, it in no way invalidates the need to conserve fossil fuels. By definition, the sum of all there is is the sum of all there is, and the good Lord ain't making any more. Our children and grandchildren and grandchildrens' grandchildren will curse our memory if we burn it all as if we were the last generation that might want a bite. Insulation, nuclear, renewables, and increased combustion efficiency are just as vital technologies as ever. Clear thinking over electric vehicles is as vital as ever before. all that changes is that we MAY not need to divert billions into carbon sequestration technology.
Little John.
God bless these hackers!
It is frustrating in the extreme to read the supposed pros and cons of this monumental issue without acknowledgment of and reference to the clearly stated intentions of the major participants.
Check these extremely revealing quotes from the following members of ‘The Club of Rome’, the premier environmental think-tank consultants to the United Nations:-
From Alexander King’s 1991 ‘Club of Rome’ book ‘The First Global Revolution’ (p75):-
"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."
Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Biology and Global Change and a lead author of many
IPCC reports in an interview with ‘Discover’ magazine October 1989:-
“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
This corker from Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation (quoted in Science Under Siege by Michael Fumento, 1993, p362):-
"We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy."
One more from Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environmental Program - Opening speech, Rio Earth Summit, 1992:-
"Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
For an excellent elaboration on what is really behind the whole fraud visit the ‘Green Agenda website:-
http://green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html
Yes Panorama proceeds with the BBC MMGW agenda and on the BBC world service .......
"The Climate connection"
@chukk
Well, what's really amazing is the SOURCE CODE found in the same dataset.
Get a copy of the source code file, find someone you trust to decode it for you , then post again.I strongly suggest this isn't an online source, or you may get a inaccurate translation.
I've remained (I hope) pretty neutral on the whole man made climate change debate, but this is entirely different.
Sadly, now, every time I hear the 'we're all going to die, unless we change our ways' routine, I will know I am being cajouled.
You ask, 'who benefits?' - not me or you, is the unfortunate answer.
FYI : I've worked in software dev for 18 years
11/30/2009 3:25:16 PM
From Wall Street Journal..November 30th 2009 - News Re:Indian Glaciers..
Most suggestions of rapid melting are based on observations of a small handful of India's 10,000 or so Himalayan glaciers. A comprehensive report in November by senior glaciologist Vijay Kumar Raina, released by the Indian government, looked more broadly and found that many of these glaciers are stable or have even advanced, and that the rate of retreat for many others has slowed recently.Jeffrey S. Kargel, a glaciologist at the University of Arizona, declared in the Nov. 13 issue of Science that these "extremely provocative" findings were "consistent with what I have learned independently," while in the same issue of the magazine Kenneth Hewitt, a glaciologist at Wilfrid Laurier University, agreed that "there is no evidence" to support the suggestion that the glaciers are disappearing quickly. A cornerstone of the global carbon regulation push has been high concern about evidence that glaciers are retreating worldwide. Glaciers are a crucial source of the Earth’s stored water. The “star” glacier, if you will, has been the Himalayan Saichen glacier, 74 km long and the largest outside the polar regions.India’s Ministry of Environment and Forests has released a comprehensive report on the Himalayan glaciers by the eminent Dr. V.K. Raina, ex-Deputy Director of the Geological Survey of India. According to his report, the Saichen glacier has “not shown any remarkable retreat in the last 50 years.” In fact, it is growing.
I've not yet seen any comment by primary and secondary school science teachers about what impact this could have on what is taught in UK schools about "man made global warming".
I suppose that next summer's examination questions will have to be redrafted. This year's curriculum will have to be changed. Is it difficult to write lesson plans about how we were all deliberately misled by a small cabal who falsified data, deleted raw data, committed offences under FOI, lied to the whole world for money and celebrity, and how they nearly got away with it? How, post Copenhagen, the changes would further impoverish millions and millions of people who do not have electricity in their homes and workplaces. Just to make even richer the carbon trading companies like Al Gore's, completely unnecessarily.
How many textbooks will have to be pulped?
It is refreshing to see such a response to the Climagate. Here in the States the censorship is so huge that most of the established media stays out of publishing articles like this. Thanks to the internet we get news from local sources and overseas. I wonder how long before the internet is also censored.
@Chukk
What is actually amazing here is the SOURCE CODE.
This isn't if the 'may or may not have fudged the data', it's blatant case of conclusion driven 'science'. Please check the source code file, then get someone who knows how to read it, then post again.
I've remained open-minded on the subject of man-made global warming until this point, but if I had been the one told to program this in this manner, I would have blown the whistle year ago.
Robinson
Brilliant quote. Sums it all up.
A Tsunami of Brainwashing from the British Media ahead of Copenhagen
Consider this output of just 20 minutes from British television tonight:
The ITN News at 6.30pm has a report from the Himalayas where "temperatures are rising faster than anywhere else in the world". (Ha!). The reporter, who has no scientific credentials whatsoever, climbed inside an ice tunnel in a "dead and rotting" glacier on Everest to "prove climate change is happening" and that our leaders "must do something about climate change at Copenhagen", etc.
This was followed by the infamous Carbon Trust's propaganda advert with the little girl who's dog and rabbit drowned "because of the grown-ups" turning on lights, etc.
Next up, was the Channel Four 7pm news, which all this week, we are informed, will be a "Countdown to Copenhagen Week". Tonight's menu was broadcast from a slum in Brazil, and the burning question was "Can we make some of the poorest people in the world better off without damaging the west's economy?" Which was a bit rich considering they preceded the item with a description of just how the rich Brazilians travel about these days. It's by helicopter, and that's coined a new term "the Helicopteracy" to describe them. The real burning question from our end was why these obscenely rich people can't pay some taxes to do the same thing, instead of bleeding us white with "carbon" taxes. Of course, this question was never asked -how dare we? This was followed by an interview with the Brazilian president who stated that the west "would pay" for their industrial progress at Copenhagen.
In this weird parallel universe, which is inhabited by all sections of the media, politicians, scientists, bureaucrats and tycoons, not one mention has been made of the biggest scientific fraud in history, and who stands to benefit from it.
Have just returned from my house roof-cavity where I have spent the past few days increasing the depth of insulation.
The forecast temperatures for tonight once again defy the Warmists theories, and promise to be as usual for this time of year ( Winter ) BELOW ZERO .
This the main reason we use insulating rock-wool and NOT reflective tin-foil in our roofs !
When FACT is patently at odds with "Scientific Consensus", are you going to go out on a limb with your own money and install reflective shielding ?
Thought not.
But this is why the EU and other monstrous anti-democratic bodies will still attempt to forge ahead - THEY need your cash for themselves - no other reason.
Watch them like hawks - they WILL try to bluff this out and they have the backing of the 'political-scientist' brigade who have now shamefully become used to lavish funding but only when they "Get it 'right'" !
Well Done Daily Telegraph - we owe you one ! ( at least ).
Booker for Prime Minister ! !
Re: Northwest Passage
Catweazle
on November 30, 2009
at 06:45 PM
said:
"Between 1940 and 1942 St. Roch navigated the Northwest Passage"
St. Roch was a police boat, and it took two years. I don't think this defeats my point.
http://www.hnsa.org/ships/stroch.htm
I'd like to land a carbon footprint on Al Gore's big fat arse.
(Copyright 2009 Denier Jokes Limited)
'
I have never seen so many posts in 3 years of reading the DT blogs...over 700 as I write this
DT : please send this massive response to the goverment and the BBC so they can see that the people realise what is going on
If the government and EU persist in taxing us , we will know it is theft and withhold our tax.
Thank you UK Telegraph for mainstreaming this from day one. You have won a lot of international readers and respect because of that. But why not Front Page news?
M (bravely using his real, full name) wrote: "The global warming effect is fact."
If it were a fact, you would have this thing called evidence. Where is the evidence? Oh, wait, there is none.
"It's simple physics"
Sure, it's so simple we can't predict the weather 6 hours in advance.
"not that any of the above conpsiracy theorists would have a clue."
Actually this was undeniable proof of a conspiracy, nevermind having a clue!
The apologists will go down in history as "flat earthers".
They are the real deniers.
Arrest Al Gore, he is a Traitor to Humanity.
G Tingey
You ask who profits?
Big Oil $23 million
AGW $79 billion
(joannenova.com.au)
Northwest Passage:
faamecanic
on November 30, 2009
at 05:34 PM
said:
Its called increase and decrease of Solar Activity...
The Sun is at solar minimum. It only gets hotter for the next 5 to 6 years.
The Telegraph did us all a service when it ran the 'Expenses Scandal'. The facts were outed and there was open and informed public debate. The Telegraph could do the world a service by exposing the scam that is man made climate change - not hidden away in Christopher Booker's (excellent) coverage on page 27 but a full page 1,2,3.. expose. Go on Telegraph, this one will make the expenses scandal seem like a warm up act..
Roger Brady
"Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner which shows why the greenhouse hypothesis is false"
Their assertions were destroyed in a New York Times thread a few months ago. I believe it was an Arthur Smith.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/03/formal-reply-to-gerlich-and-tscheuner.html
This is the saddest thing - the old denialist stuff coming back with renewed vigour. Oh well wish I was paid for this.
please lets not let this affair fizzle out - it deservs everyone's closest attention!
corporate media mislearbly fails yet again.internet rocks.
never mind the google.. they might just google themselves out of use..
there are other search engines that show at least as good results as google's.
best wishes
Climategate is exploding.
Now its finally on frontpage of Norwegian newspapers too. But not until e24 came up with the story first.
Amazing, one small group of researchers who may or may not have fudged data discounts the independently performed research of more than one thousand other scientists?
I find it quite funny, now that it is know that the dta was destroyed because of lack of space to keep it, these same scientists will now release the data. Falsified data. You got to love it.
G Tingey,
You asked who profits from discounting man-made global warming?
Answer: we all do!!
I suggest you ask yourself, "Who profits from falsifying data and hyping false conclusions that geophysical climate change is man-made?"
Answer: the very people who are the purveyors of this fraud. Do you have any idea of the billions in grants and research given to the vociferous prevaricators of man-made global warming ecohysterics? The other class that benefits, of course, are the political elite who are aggregating greater regulatory power and authority over mankind by this huge fraud.
You want to follow the money? There it is, and you and I and every other person who enjoys the benefits of modern society will bear the immense cost of this perfidy should it stand.
We catch, redhanded, the purveyors of man-made global warming falsifying data and misrepresenting facts, and you blame big coal and oil?
You are another of those miscreants who believes that your self-righteous beliefs justify whatever means may be necessary to impose your religion on the rest of us.
Yes, we should be wise stewards over the earth and its resources; but "NO" we should not give quarter to those who lie to manipulate our perceptions - no matter how noble or worthy they think the goal.
RENNY. Good point about the Left Wing media in the USA. These stations (especially NBC) are in big trouble with their points of view (including Man-made Climate Change). The only station that has not swallowed this rubbish is FOX NEWS .... and they are very much on the UP. People have had enough of BS from people like Al Gore (who recently stated that the temperature of the Earth's Core was now several MILLION Degrees)!!! This is what a NOBEL prize gets you these days.
"The silence among the British establishment is deafening. There should be massive banner headlines/reports in all media of whatever format."
It's called embarrassment. These people have expended vast amounts of methane at dinner parties discussing their carbon footprints. It would be very hard for them to change their opinions in the course of a week. I love to quote Tolstoy here:
"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives."
Wow - 906 comments so far, and the top spot in the most viewed list! Well done Christopher Booker.
I'm busy reading a proof by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner which shows why the greenhouse hypothesis is false. With school physics to my name it is rather hard going, but I suggest to all the boffins in the blogosphere (which is heating, by the day) that they sharpen their pencils and give it some thought.
If correct, they have killed the Dragon. Consensus be damned: all it takes is one proof - ask Galileo.
Good on you both, Gert and Ralf. Now convince important people.
G. Tingey
"Who profits ...?
Big Oil & Big Coal."
And? So what? No one is buying this lame, ad hominem attack any more.
Even the most one-eyed Leftist can now see that government money corrupts. State science has become politicized - as it must. That's what people can see.
"Cui Bon?
WHO PROFITS?
Who profits from trying to ensure that Global Warming, especially the man-made version, is discounted ...?
Big Oil & Big Coal."
I don't really care, G.Tingey.
I am interested only in the truth.
It appears that the CRU has been cooking the books for years to fit their agenda.
I do not trust any of the data they have "quality controlled" (what a wonderful way to describe their fiddling with the figures).
I do not trust the people who run the CRU.
As for "Professor" Phil Jones, this is scandal is perfect proof that a fish rots from the head downwards.
Panorama BBC1 South
Monday 30 November 8:30pm - 9:00pm
Can Tesco Save the World?
.... Tesco now leading the business fightback against man-made global warming? Local communities and a new breed of business entrepreneurs increasingly see delivering a low-carbon economy as an opportunity to make money, while politicians are wary of forcing the pace of change because of its potential to lose votes.
I wonder if they'll cancel this program?
Oy...the ITN News at 6.30pm has a report from the Himalayas where "temperatures are rising faster than anywhere else in the world".
Perhaps the Himalayas are volcanos, compensating for the fact that temperatures generally have been falling steadily since 2007 (and probably earlier).
Mainstream media journalists are bone-idle and brain-dead, capable of swallowing (and regurgitating) prepackaged propaganda pap and nothing else.
I think Climategate proves that the science is far from settled and the motives of those promoting this hypothesis are questionable at the very least. Regardless of what individuals think, or are being influenced to think, the political roller coaster is probably unstoppable and will result in a backward step for human progress.
I would accept the generally agreed 0.6 degree C increase in global temperatures over the last century, but the suggestion that this is exceptional and/or largely due to human CO2 emissions is at best unproven. Being that any CO2 influence will have a diminishing effect (half the warming for each doubling of CO2) I find the idea that temperatures will increase 4 to 6 times the rate in the 20th century totally out of proportion - positive feedback, prove it! Also, the current CLOUD experiment being carried out at CERN by Jasper Kirkby and his international team have a much more scientific approach than the newly, self-appointed collective of "experts" called Climatologists.
algore should be criminally prosecuted and made to pay back the taxpayers under RICO act,also to pay back movie goers who paid to see his flawed documentary that was proven in court to have at least 9 blatant scientific errors in it,why stop there, then lets investigate politicians also and the UN...all the way down the line.. just follow the money!!!!
GW - Another White Devil lie!!!!
Write ABC, NBC, and CBS to tell them they need to report on the scam about MGW because it could be the final source of their surviving as news orps. or becoming mere "headline" blips of the networks.
They have been losing 4-5% viewership a year for over a decade, so they are on the downside of 50% of former audiences.
Maybe the specter of lost money will strike them where politics paralyzes them.
AmericanGypsie on November 30, 2009 at 04:40 PM
"Explain this, oh disbelievers."
Explain this, oh credulous one:
"Between 1940 and 1942 St. Roch navigated the Northwest Passage, arriving in Halifax harbor on October 11, 1942. St. Roch was the second ship to make the passage, and the first to travel the passage from west to east. In 1944, St. Roch returned to Vancouver via the more northerly route of the Northwest Passage, making her run in 86 days."
Link: http://www.hnsa.org/ships/stroch.htm
Or:
"In 1903, Amundsen led the first expedition to successfully traverse Canada's Northwest Passage between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roald_Amundsen
GW - Another White Devil lie!!!!
Wonder how many of these insiders (Jones, Mann, et al) are stockholders of green companies--especially those backed by Al Gore.
Gary Said, "What's worse? Man-made climate change is real and we do nothing OR it isn't but we do something ...?"
I ask, Which is worse: Aliens controlling our thoughts with electromagnetic radiation and we do nothing about it OR it isn't true, but we all wear fashionable aluminum foil hats?
The point being: your "end justifies the means" argument presents the lector with a false dichotomy.
Government policy (especially those that severely interfere with individual liberty) should always be founded on sound reasoning and objective truth - not on hype, ecohysterics, technophobia, pseudoscience or what I call "hollywood physics" (the false belief that public figures - politicians and actors - have any authoritative idea about the causes they espouse).
Cui Bon?
WHO PROFITS?
Who profits from trying to ensure that Global Warming, especially the man-made version, is discounted ...?
Big Oil & Big Coal.
Next question, why can't people see this?
I see in this month's Scientific American that someone has reconstructed the hockey stick graph using a different method of analysis.
Cold, innit?
Gilbert
on November 30, 2009
at 04:52 PM
All very true and very laudible. Now apply that to the great "evolution" fraud and watch as that rubbish theory falls apart. Then listen as the great scientist community around the world admit that the theory does not work and Darwin was talking out of the wrong orifice.
Then document all the frauds that the scientific community have propagated in an effort to prove this weak idea is true.
Finally, ask yourself why this theory is sold to children as fact and the text books those children are focred to read are full of lies.
Now, compare that mess with this Climategate mess. See any similarities?
No? Can't do that? Didn't think so!
Let's not even go to the 'Big Bang' crap that says we all "evolved" from a rock that itself "evolved" after nothing met nothing and exploded.
Science my arse!
Just imagine all of the lies we would find on Al Gore's laptop!
I knew GW was a hoax the minute I found out Al Gore was behind it. For all of those in the UK, this guy's wife was trying to ban music a few years back, nothing new from the Gore's here
These people are out for one thing.... control
I read a (re-purposed) quote the other day re the climate alarmist conspiracy which went something along the lines of “....if someone repeats something loud enough, long enough and often enough, sooner or later the masses will accept it as fact...” – And this is precisely what has happened re AGW, esp with the mass media censure of any real balanced debate. Gormless Brown, Nic Sarkastic, Al Bore and all those other gullible idiots have either, (at best), picked up the undetermined fag end of an issue several years ago and decided to run with and champion the liberal do-gooder / “save the planet” element to win public vote, with save drowning polar bear approbation. As the politicos naively thought this was an open and shut case (and didn’t bother to acid test the motivations (let alone data) of ego-maniacal eco “experts” (and in which many science “experts” are often ego-nuts with esteem issues, bent on proving themselves right and being “cleverer” than their peers in my experience), who are gravy-train grant funded precisely to seek out confirmation bias to support the empathised political agenda / hand that feeds).
Or, at worst, (just as likely), the political elite didn’t even care about the “inconvenient truth” of this being emperor’s new clothes, but knew it was yet another of those golden, once-a-decade opportunities to distract and dupe the proletariat whilst achieving command and control with addition direct and stealth taxation and power gain.
A concept covered in depth in Naomi Klein’s interesting, (but flawed, rather verbose (could’ve been a mag article) and also a bit too militant left-wing for my liking, “Shock Doctrine” book – which can be summed up nicely (via someone else’s’ review words) in one para as:- `...a book about shock. About how countries are shocked - by wars, terror attacks, coups d'etat and natural disasters . And then they are shocked again - by corporations and politicians who exploit their fear and disorientation of this first shock to push through economic shock therapy. And then how people who dare to resist these shock politics are, if necessary, shocked for a third time - by laws, police soldiers and prison officers...'
But it’s a perfect analogy. Climate Change is an “unnatural disaster” now all of a sudden. Mankind controls the planet, such is our scientific pre-eminence (despite not even yet being able to cure the common cold). So just drop the following into the government controlled left wing news media in regular doses:- “...the earth is melting. FACT. Another 3 degrees (which doesn’t sound much given most of the sheep listening turn their car AC up and down by double that) and London & NY WILL be underwater and everywhere else will be desert – FACT. It’s all down to man – FACT (here’s a picture of a chimney belching out smoke – you’ve all seen a chimney right?, and there were four days of relatively warm weather in June right?, so it must be true. FACT). Plus here’s a list of 1,000 scientists you’ve never heard of (all left of centre sympathisers on research grants), who say it must be so. So it must be so. FACT – though you’ll never get to hear from the other 1,000 scientists with a neutral or opposing view as we and their peers will see to it they never get print or air time (apart from the odd loon we’ll roll out to ridicule and prove a point every now and then). And, before you know it, the earth is flat again! – FACT. And you, cowering, fearful, guilty and responsible children of the apocalypse, will have to pay for it in extra taxes to file down those sharp corners, revert to a mediaeval lifestyle for five generations and also keep schtum re any creeping doubt or slight dissent for fear of public ridicule, being made a social pariah or just plain fines or good old arrest for heresy.
What really galls me, is the machiavellian deviousness of the AGW acolytes. To the extent, JUST like religious fundamentalism, they are so arrogant, narrow minded and corrupt they don’t want to entertain any balanced debate whatsoever or have an open mind, but seek to crush and ridicule any opposition to their gravy train and eco-jihad by resorting to spoiler tactics and outright lying.
It’s also rather pathetic that in the process of brainwashing themselves and the mass public, CO2 has been turned into some metaphor for smog, soot - practically coal itself - being emitted from cars, planes and even our mouths. When in fact it is an invisible, tasteless, odourless, non toxic gas found naturally in the atmosphere which plants and trees feed on. But it has been wrapped up with blurred concepts of smoke, dirt, lethal carbon monoxide, rubbish, toxic pollutants et al. Something most AGW fanatics tend to forget when happily drinking fizzy water, beer, coke et al whilst enjoying their cold hemp and gravel salad by torchlight.
Real pollution by man and damage to the environment, de-forestation, destruction of natural habitat, accelerated extinction of species, using the oceans as a waste bin, food chain and ecology bastardisation et al, is not in debate, is not acceptable and needs to be dealt with, it’s a fact. That the planet has warmed is also not in debate. It does this, and cools down, all by itself on a regular basis – and has done, for millions of years. That’s also a FACT. (Though the AGW posse like to gloss over the fact is was rather a lot warmer, for a LONG time, only a 1,000 years ago in the mediaeval warm period, when the Vikings had settlements on grass meadows in Greenland, and to the best of my knowledge, they didn’t get there by EasyJet). But what should be in debate is that it is NOT a FACT that man-made C02 is causing any appreciable global warming or climate change. It’s a hypothesis, nothing more, and a pretty dubious one at that, with lots of shaky data obtained and massaged by nefarious means into shock and awe graphs to serve a political purpose.
Here’s a REAL fact to end with, which even the AGW lobby can’t dispute (well, unless they start providing “evidence” that the 78% nitrogen in the atmosphere is produced from toasters).
• Man made carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere each year – 28.5 billion tons p.a. - Sounds quite a lot.....until....
• Natural (plants, volcanoes, hot springs, oceans, animals et al) C02 emissions – 255 billion tons p.a.
• Amount of C02 at natural equilibrium in the atmosphere – 21 trillion tons
• Total volume of atmosphere – 5.5 quadrillion tons
• Percentage of all man-made C02 as additional gas in entire atmosphere – 0.0000518%
And yet the climate alarmist experts can, with a straight face, confidently predict that a “catalyst” such as C02 (already naturally and safely found in volumes 1,000x mankind’s entire annual output) can, by an additional dose of a further 0.0000518% alone, be responsible for a planet-wide increase in temperature of between 20-50% (3-6 degrees over the 15c avg for past 1000 yrs, if alarmists extrapolations are to be believed), and the resulting total cataclysmic change to every known environment (down to the precise amount of sea-level change), in a linear extrapolation for the next 50-100 years, when meteorologists with supercomputers consistently fail to get the local 48hr weather forecast correct on more than 60% of occasions, every single day. But they suddenly have the skill, science and equipment to form a prognosis based literally on the effects of a drop in the ocean.... yeah, right.....
Funn daMental on November 30, 2009 at 02:25 PM
You are far too intelligent to be posting here, only one fish took the fly(s) to date.
BookerGate 5.01pm
Climategate is what Mr Booker's splendid article is about. So what exactly is the point that you are trying to make? You BookerGate are the Scum of this Cooling Earth that our parents warned us about. Your irrelevant rubbish and infantile posting is best suited to DeDogExcreta. I think the best way to describe you BookerGate is a Carbuncle on the Backside of Humanity. And I am being kind when I describe you thus.
AmericanGypsie on November 30, 2009 at 04:40 PM
This is too easy. :)
"Satellites witness lowest Arctic ice coverage in history".
A history of thirty years!!!!!
And as for the "Norwegian Polar Institute this is the first time it has been clear since they began keeping records in 1972", this when the world was going into an iceage!
Reality wise, a period when the oceanic states affecting the north pole were negative which subsequently changed and we get the new alarmism...
For a history of the "first times" that the northwest passage has been open try here. http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/09/bad-reporting-about-northwest-passage.html
Note that it has been a headline story for the BBC several times.
"Here is a photo of the St. Roch. It’s a wooden ship, not some massive, metallic icebreaker. According to the Vancouver Maritime Museum web site, this 104 foot wooden ship sailed through the Northwest Passage from 1940 to 1942, that was from west to east. In 1944 it did it again from from east to west. King George VI awarded Captain Henry Larsen, and the crew, the Polar Medal for making the 1944 voyage."
Time magazine reprises a 1937 report of another example.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,770864-1,00.html
The northeast passage was also proclaimed open this year in spite of the Russians regularly moving 160 ships a year via that route but they are wise enough to always provide icebreaker escorts unlike the perennial idiots who think they can kayak to the north pole only after collecting the gullibles money first. And sceptics are called wingnuts. :)
Mr Booker is entirely correct with regard to asbestos, just as he is over "Global Warming".
This is a judgment from 29 September 2009:
NEWS FLASH
The UK Government has been forced to accept a humiliating defeat after being told to withdraw a publicity campaign promoted by the Health & Safety Executive [HSE] claiming that 4500 workers die each year from asbestos exposure. More specifically the HSE was stating as a fact that 9 carpenters, 9 plumbers and 9 electricians would die each week from asbestos exposure. This was found to be untrue.
The UK Asbestos Watchdog’s complaint to the official Advertising Standards Authority [ASA] was upheld on all of the 5 complaints made. Watchdog’s evidence that white asbestos cement materials, which makes up 90% of all asbestos products, had no measurable risk to health was not disputed .
For the full judgment visit the AW web site at www.asbestoswatchdog.co.uk
This is Asbestos Watchdog’s second major success.
3 years ago AW successfully challenged the HSE over its high risk assessment of white asbestos containing Artex. The HSE had no choice but to remove asbestos containing Artex from the expensive notifiable asbestos regulations. This allows any builder to do the work without a premium cost.
...More information about how harmless white asbestos is can be found here www.asbestoswatchdog.co.uk
Sell your GE stock. GE and NBC have promoted this scam from the gitgo....
Fly my molecular friends,Fly my pretty ones,Fly..
With politicians and Government ploughing millions upon millions of the public's money, why are these "scientists" not being prosecuted for fraud? Or is it because it is tax money that is being stolen to give these scientists a better life.
To "M"
you suggest that the global warming event is a fact. I'm not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean that global warming is manmade, or just that the earth, on a geological timescale, undergoes warming and cooling periods. If the former, you are wrong: the proposition that global warming is man-made is a hypothesis, not a fact. If the latter, you are right- the earth has undergone periods of higher and lower average global temperatures.
According to the real scientific authorities in the matter, geophysicists, the real threat to humanity is not global warming, but the prospects of another mini-ice age.
You need to stop listening to climatologists and meterologists as authorities on climate change, and start paying attention to the geophysicists. Calling a meteorologist or climatoligist scientific authorities is equivalent to calling a technician an engineer.
If you think they are geophysical scientists, go do a curriculum comparison for what it takes to become a geophysicist vs a meterologist.
Then when you are done with that homework, ask yourself what it means that geophysicists in general are "man-made global warming sceptics."
The "Man-made global warming" conclusion is based on pseudoscience. It looks like science, acts like science, and talks like science; but it ain't good science my friend.
I say we should give back to Nature what we have taken from it;Burn all the false documentation releasing the CO2.. and let the plants enjoy it.
AmericanGypsie, So this is all the proof you need, nothing cyclical here this is all caused by man. We need to raise taxes and trade carbon offsets, destroy economies, that will right everything in your mind. The science has to be thrown out because it is based on flawed data. So now we base it on, ice is melting therefore it must be! you believers want to march off a cliff don't try to take the rest of us with you!
BookerGate on November 30, 2009 at 05:01 PM
It appears to have escaped your attention, but the matter under discussion is not the credibility of Mr. Booker, but the credibility of the scientists upon whose data and methodology the current AGW scare is based.
Mr Booker was not the source of this data, he is merely reporting on it.
Do you have anything to contribute to that particular discussion?
This is just the tip of the compromised scientific stablishment iceberg of corruption.
The other "science" that is in the same ship includes, cosmology, pharmaceutical, biology (read evolution/darwinism), geology, paleontology and any other "science" that embraces evolution as it's core paradigm.
They all use the very same ways to forward their agendas; distort data, hid relevant information that do not support their views, ban any study that criticize their beliefs, discredit anyone who dare to chalenge them or to present oposing views, deny publication of their works in scientific publications, etc. The modern compromised scientific stablishment is not engaged in the search for the truth, but in advancing their own beliefs, selfish personal interest, corporate intersts, trying to prove that they are right.
And the pope of all them, Mr Richard Dawkins.
Rhys Jaggar
on November 30, 2009
at 03:48 PM
Your points mean nothing. You are just trying (and failing)to be clever. You do the anti-AGW cause a disservice.
We had our first dusting of snow last night. Two weeks later and much lighter than a year ago. It's already melted, whereas it stayed around last year.
What does it mean? - Nothing.
And meanwhile the Conservatives are stuck with green Cameron. What a time to have the wrong leader!
"AmericanGypsie
on November 30, 2009
On August 21, 2007, the Northwest Passage became open to ships without the need of an icebreaker. According to Nalan Koc of the Norwegian Polar Institute this is the first time it has been clear since they began keeping records in 1972.[4][13] The Northwest Passage opened again on August 25, 2008.[14]
[4] a b c "Satellites witness lowest Arctic ice coverage in history". http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMYTC13J6F_index_0.html. Retrieved 2007-09-14.
[13] North-West Passage is now plain sailing http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/aug/28/climatechange.internationalnews
[14] Arctic shortcuts open up; decline pace steady http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2008/082508.html"
Ya..and at the Ice caps on Mars have grown and shrunk as well over time...hardly doubt MAN could have influenced the ice caps on Mars.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm
Its called increase and decrease of Solar Activity...
Again you CANNOT draw conclusions from correlations with out including ALL data. Which is exactly what the whacko Man Made Global Warming idiots have done.
The collectivist social/economic effects of global warmist prescriptions are a certainty once they're implemented, while the climate impacts are a mere possibility of a maybe of a possibility of a maybe. Hmmmm, I wonder which represent the real driving motivation??
"BookerGate - the biggest popular scientific scandal of our time!"
It'll never fly, Wilbur.
Very malicious to use a picture of water vapor coming from cooling towers to marquis a statement about CO2 emmissions being the subject of a meeting in Denmark. Thats the intersection of ignorance, malice & agenda, right there.
I'm very happy to see this scam being reported in Britain, because it's been hushed up in the US. The only major network carrying anything about it is Fox. Not one story in CNN or MSNBC. They have apparently decided that it's beneath them to run a story that might expose the biggest con job ever; man made GW.
"Dr. Albert Gortenbull
on November 30, 2009
Look to the skys for the definitive solution to the man-made global warming hypothesis. Keep earth's telescopes focused on Mars. If the Martian polar caps continue to function in tandem with those on earth, the mystery is solved. Albert"
Best post out of the 800+ here. Sums up what Scientists SHOULD be looking at to interpolate data vs. using the MUS method of statistical research (MUS = Made Up S**t).
And the good Dr. did it in one small paragraph... Bravo sir!
Wow this must be a record amount of postings please send the contents to Al Bore ! He might like to include some of the comments in his next oh so knowledgeable book !!
Henry Pool
on November 30, 2009
at 02:23 PM
I believed you the first time !!
David Jackson
on November 30, 2009
at 02:25 PM
For gods sake, water vapour driven sky wards by steam.
Alas, it seems that the only true words consistently spoken throughout this years-long ordeal are from Senator James Inhofe...AGW truly is the biggest hoax foisted upon mankind in history.
To all sceptics - please note Bookers previous form on asbestos...don't let it happen again on climate change.
Note his continuous and knowing modus operandi of repetition of falsehoods and citing dodgy "experts" to back up his whacky case - despite the evident negligence involved and risks he caused to others:
"Booker's scientific claims, which include the false assertion that white asbestos (chrysotile) is "chemically identical to talcum powder" were also analysed in detail by Richard Wilson in his book Don't Get Fooled Again (2008). (The chemical formula for talc is H2Mg3(SiO3)4 or Mg3Si4O10(OH)2, while the formula for chrysotile, the primary ingredient of white asbestos, is Mg3(Si2O5)(OH)4. It is worth noting that even if the composition were identical, which it clearly isn't, the actual structure/connectivity is what is significant, a situation well known in chemistry as isomerism at a molecular level and polymorphism (materials science) in the case of non-molecular materials or crystals. What makes chrysotile dangerous is not its composition - silicates are common - but its fibrous structure.
Wilson highlighted Christopher Booker's repeated endorsement of the alleged scientific expertise of John Bridle, who has claimed to be "the world's foremost authority on asbestos science", but who in 2005 was convicted under the UK's Trade Descriptions Act of making false claims about his qualifications, and who the BBC has accused of basing his reputation on "lies about his credentials, unaccredited tests, and self aggrandisement".
Christopher Booker's scientific claims about asbestos have been criticized several times by the UK government's Health and Safety Executive.
In 2002, the HSE's Director General, Timothy Walker, wrote that Booker's articles on asbestos had been "misinformed and do little to increase public understanding of a very important occupational health issue”.
In 2005, the Health and Safety Executive issued a rebuttal after Christopher Booker wrote an article suggesting, incorrectly, that the HSE had agreed with him that white asbestos posed "no medical risk".
In 2006, the HSE published a further rebuttal after Christopher Booker had claimed, again incorrectly, that the Health and Safety Laboratory had concluded that the white asbestos contained within Artex textured coatings posed "no health risk".
In May 2008, the Health and Safety Executive accused Booker of writing an article that was "substantially misleading".
In the article, published by the Sunday Telegraph earlier that month, Booker had claimed, falsely, that a paper produced in 2000 by two HSE statisticians, Hodgson and Darnton, had 'concluded that the risk of contracting mesothelioma from white asbestos cement was "insignificant", while that of lung cancer was "zero"'.
Enough said.
Quote from J R Dunn from American Thinker.
There is always a deeper level to the damage caused by fraud. It strains social relationships, generates cynicism, and debases standing institutions. What has suffered the most damage from AGW is faith in the scientific method, the basic set of procedures -- it could be called an algorithm -- governing scientific investigation. These procedures embody simplicity itself: you examine a phenomenon. You gather data. You construct a hypothesis to explain that phenomenon. And then...
Well, first, let's cover what you don't do.
You don't manipulate data (as CRU chief scientist Phil Jones stated he was doing in the now-famous "Mike's trick" e-mail, not to mention throughout the now-famous source code).
You don't fabricate data (as one CRU scientist did while compiling weather-station data. Running into problems, he states, "I can make it up. So I did." He adds an evil smiley face. This e-mail has gone under radar up until now. It can be found in the comments on James Delingpole's blog.).
You don't deny data to other investigators (as Hansen, Jones, and, it appears, everybody else in the warming community has done at one time or another).
You don't destroy evidence (as the members of the CRU did following a Freedom of Information request).
You don't bury contradictory data (as Jones and several colleagues did in an attempt to undercut the impact of the Medieval Warming Period).
You don't secretly manipulate the argument from behind the scenes (as the CRU staff did with the website Realclimate.org., screening comments to allow only those that supported the warming thesis).
You don't secretly undercut your critics (as Mann advised the CRU to do concerning the scientific journal Climate Research: "I think we have to stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.").
You don't try to get a journal editor critical of your case fired (as the CRU staff evidently succeeded in doing with an editor for Geophysical Research Letters).
What you do, if you are a serious scientist operating according to the established method, is attempt to thwart your hypothesis. Test it to destruction; carry out serious attacks on its weakest points to see if they hold up. If they do -- and the vast majority of hypotheses suffer the indignity embodied in a phrase attributed variously to Thomas Huxley and Lord Kelvin -- "a beautiful theory slain by an ugly fact" -- then you have a theory that can be published, and tested, and verified by other scientists. If you don't, you throw it out.
None of this, amidst all the chicanery, fabrications, and manipulations, appears to have been done by anyone active in global warming research, the CRU least of all. From this point, we are forced to conclude that AGW is not science, and that any "consensus" that can be drawn from it is a consensus of fraud.
If you want want a one world government you have to manufacture a CRISIS. Climate change is the manufactured crisis. Environmentalism is the new Communism.. wake up world..
There is no doubt the planet is on an unsustainable path in regards to population and resources. However, you can't solve it by alloweing a few elites to enslave the whole planet.. Wake up sheep...
As an Anthropologist, I am unqualified to critique the experts in this matter. As a scientist, I am appalled that classic norms have been perverted and abused in this way, and I am angry. I do see the shaman, however, and the medicine man in this scandal, 'trust me'.
Explain this, oh disbelievers.
On August 21, 2007, the Northwest Passage became open to ships without the need of an icebreaker. According to Nalan Koc of the Norwegian Polar Institute this is the first time it has been clear since they began keeping records in 1972.[4][13] The Northwest Passage opened again on August 25, 2008.[14]
[4] a b c "Satellites witness lowest Arctic ice coverage in history". http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMYTC13J6F_index_0.html. Retrieved 2007-09-14.
[13] North-West Passage is now plain sailing http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/aug/28/climatechange.internationalnews
[14] Arctic shortcuts open up; decline pace steady http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2008/082508.html
It seems like we need a fair and impartial scientific authority set up that people can quote. We may have one but to me its not entirely obvious.
However, this is swept aside by this political rant finished off nicely by an advert for Mr Booker book. I’ve wasted my time reading both articles. Next time I’ll check the author first! The Telegraph really has lowered its standards here.
I would have thought that changing temperature is a small but significant slice of the green energy debate. Shouldn't the question be whether we want a future based on fossil fuels and petrochemicals?
Funn DaMental is a nut bag.
What's worse? Man-made climate change is real and we do nothing OR it isn't but we do something to change the developed world's unsustainable lifestyle and helping the developing world get a better deal without making our mistakes?
Dear M, the whole climatgate scandal is, by the strictest definition, a conspiracy. As much as you would like to pretend that the word conspiracy does not exist it most certainly does. When dozens of top scientists get together and conspire to hide data, delete data and censor opposing viewpoints that is a conspiracy, even if it were only 2 scientists. Its not a theory it is a fact that has been exposed by these leaked emails.
You said "What's worse? Man-made climate change is real and we do nothing OR it isn't but we do something to change the developed world's unsustainable lifestyle and helping the developing world get a better deal without making our mistakes?" How stubborn can you be? These emails expose the fact that man-made global warming is a hoax and yet you still consider it to be a possibilty. Many prominent scientists that have been censored are actually saying the global temperature is in decline. And your theory of unsustainable lifestyles is also a result of fixed data and censoring of opposing data.
There is no need to send the developed world into poverty which will result in the deaths of millions of innocent people. No one wants to live on a toxic planet but also no one wants to live under draconian law that requires people and industries to meet unrealistic energy levels when the market is already creating it.
The real crisis that this world faces is idiots like you spouting nonsense on comment boards. If you want to save the world and eliminate all of your carbon footprint please go suck on the end of a pistol.
I wonder if anyone has looked at the "objective debate" on climate change causality posted by the establishment - for example the Met Office website and the Royal Society. I went to them for balanced reviews and enlightenment, but found a party line as monolithic as any that graced the former Eastern Bloc. I welcome any pressure which brings a more balanced open and scientific approach to this important public debate.
Until such time an actual program can be developed that takes into account ALL of the variables that make up the climate as a whole none of the conclusions can be taken as empirical data.
There is no question the climate is changing simply because it has been in constant flux for about 2-3 BILLION years. That is the only fact that can be stated without question.
What we have now is a scientific community that is on the brim of being able to accurately monitor the myriad of conditions that make up our climate, unfortunately some are satisfied to count the last 100 years of collected data and some core samples and use that as an all encompassing model of truth instead of what is in all probability a cycle of the earths existence.
I will reiterate: Until such time as we have the ability to accurately monitor every variable that makes up our atmosphere as well as the extraordinary external forces that can and do act upon our little magnet, we should concentrate our money and research on ways to feed the planet. The earth was here before us and will be here after us, let's leave it at that.
There have always been people who will stand on street corners with their "The End Is Near" signs.
Hopefully our governments won't make us listen to them and do what they say.
http://conservativelibertine.blogspot.com/2009/11/climate-change-new-religion.html
We have had global warming before - without the existence of cars, lorries, aircraft or factories. It's just that we weren't around to remember it.
This time around, governments are more savvy in inventing ways to extract hard earned money from thier citizens, of which carbon taxes will be just another fraudulent way of doing this.
But if climate change isn't real, I will have to find a new god to worship.
'A Boiler Designer
on November 29, 2009
at 04:07 PM''
I know that your intentions were good but......your explanation was cr**.
Boiler generated steam is condensed in the condenser of the turbine.
The water that cools the condenser (causing the condensation)is the water that goes to the cooling tower and is then returned to the cooling circuit when it is cooled. It has absolutely no direct contact with the boiler feed water or the steam generated in the boiler.
but you knew this already didn't you?
Not a Boiler designer, but a Power Station Engineer.
GC
on November 30, 2009
at 06:07 AM wrote: "There is a very REAL way to stop all coal burning and other cancer causing, global warming caused effects, and that is to implement CONSERVATIONIST approaches such as wind, solar, wave, water, and newly found alternative sources of energy that do NOT damage the Earth or its inhabitants."
Regardless of how you stand on the global warming position, the simple truth is that it is impossible to reliably operate a power system with only these alternative energies that you've suggested. In today's power system the large generators, whethere fueled by geothermal, coal, nuclear, natural gas, etc., have an inertia that will compensate for problems on the power system. For instance, if a generator is lost, the other generators on the system will give up some of their spinning energy to help maintain a stable system and keep the supply of electricity constant, in most cases. Without that spinning mass of the large generators, the system would be very unstable and would collapse every time there was a glitch of some kind. Additionally, the large generators provide reactive support for transmission components, which is essential for the operation of the system. A transmission line must have this reactive support in order to carry load and maintain a high enough voltage to operate. This same reactive support is also provided by various types of static equipment, but you would have to have an excessive number of those components to make up for the loss of reactive support provided by the generators. Let's look at these alternative energies you suggested:
WIND: wind turbines can produce several Mega-Watts of electricity. They can be a good source of energy, except that they only work when the wind blows. Usually, the wind is not blowing when it's hot and the load on the power system is at it's peak. Wind turbines are very unreliable since you can't plan on them being there when you need them. Further, they cannot provide the essential rotating mass (to compensate for glitches in the system) or reactive support (to help maintain system voltages). Some wind is fine, but you cannot depend upon it exclusively.
SOLAR: Solar panels produce relatively little energy for the amount of space they require. The extreme ineffeciency of solar makes building any major solar projects impossible. You would have to destroy thousands of acres of land in order to produce any kind of usable solar system. I would think that the environmentalists would be equally upset about destroying land as they are about the alleged global warming. Further, solar is unreliable as it only works when the sun is out. Also, no spinning mass and no reactive support.
Wave generation: To my knowledge, wave generation produces relatively little energy. Last I heard it was on the range of 1 Mega-Watt for a single wave generator. Is that accurate? If so, it would require hundreds of those wave generators to make up for one average coal-fired power plant. I'm thinking that building millions of these wave generators and destroying the coastline of every continent is not an option. Also, no spinning mass and no reactive support.
WATER? By this do you mean Hydro? While hydro energy is a great source of electricity, it isn't technically considered renewable because the reserviors that hold the water for the dams eventually fill with silt and become useless. I don't know of too many environmentalists that support destroying the natural habitat of a river by blocking it for electricity. The upside to hydro is that it does provide the spinning mass and the reactive support required for a stable power system.
Alternative sources: I'm not sure which alternative sources you're referring to, but in every case I can gurantee you that any alternative method is going to either require burning something to make heat in order to make steam for driving a generator turbine, or it will use natural heat, such as geothermal, which is limited. If these methods don't require making heat, then they likely lack the spinning mass and reactive support needed for safe and reliable operation of the power system.
If the legislators manage to require huge amounts of alternative energies in our power system, regardless of the combination of these alternatives, they will only manage to make it unreliable and unsafe. You can bet on having a major blackout, like the one in North East America in '03, on a regular basis. Our country would essentially be plummeted into 3rd world status. You and everyone else would have to be willing to give up the lifestyle you now enjoy. Sadly, the lawmakers and those who are pushing for this change to our electrical system have no idea about how that electrical system operates. Your ignorance will be the undoing of our society.
Even if "global warming" is an invention of manipulated data (and it would indeed be quite a conspiracy to put together), it is NOT an excuse to continue the unsustainable path we are on as a planet with regards to energy.
At best, we are looking at several hundred years worth of coal and oil supplies that are not equally distributed on this earth. And certainly much less time before demand exceeds production.
We absolutely can not wait to shift towards sustainable and reliable energy sources. If not, there will be global conflict over what fossil fuels do remain. And it will not be pretty.
While it is wrong to falsify data to justify a desired conclusion, the message of global warming is right:
We MUST change our ways. We MUST do this on national scales and global scales.
This is more than switching to compact flourescent light bulbs or driving hybrid vehicles. Those are a nice statement, but we MUST eliminate coal and oil as power generation sources.
Inconvenient truths currently:
1. Record November snowfall in Whistler BC and the second highest November snowfall in 20 years in Mt Baker WA. So clearly the climate change isn't too terrible in leading NW ski resorts.
2. Heavy snowfall at the end of November in the European alps after two sizable early falls in mid-October and early November. So pretty much situation normal over our side of the pond too.
3. The arctic ice is pretty consistent with the past 10 years, this year the advance north of Alaska is faster than normal, whilst Hudson Bay is taking longer to freeze over. No signs of continuing terror there, more like stabilisation. We'll accept the data if it gets worse though, just as we''ll accept the data if it returns closer to a long-term average in the next 5 years.
4. We've had a wet and mild November in the UK. So what? Good for the water tables and reservoirs, isn't it? 5 years ago everyone was moaning about droughts. Now we've turned the tables. Problem?
5. Nice lot of rain falling in Iberia and north Africa - is that a problem?
6. How's the drought in Australia? Worse than 100 years ago?? Dear me, are you saying that droughts in Australia happen REGULARLY? Dear me....
7. How's the drought in NW Texas? Why isn't that reported on, eh? REPUBLICAN TERRITORY? How's that for partisan reporting, eh??
8. Is it still cold in NE China and Siberia? Why can't I find a story about that?
9. Why hasn't the sunspot cycle 24 taken off with a vengeance yet? It's dozing again, really anaemic take-off these past two months. What's going wrong with our predictions??
10. Why's the 10.7nm radiation not going through the ceiling yet? Our models said it should be. What's wrong with the sun??
11. Why did that weather fascist Piers Corbyn's wacko predictions hit the jackpot? No-one can predict the weather 100 days in advance without fiddling the data. What's wrong with you all outside CRU?
Look to the skys for the definitive solution to the man-made global warming hypothesis. Keep earth's telescopes focused on Mars. If the Martian polar caps continue to function in tandem with those on earth, the mystery is solved. Albert
Funn daMental,
I would like to ask how you think that water vapor in the air is dangerous.
You are an engineer, but obviously not a Chem E. If you were, then you would understand the idea of an equilibrium. Adding water vapor to the air merely increases the amount of dew, rain, frost, and snow that comes out of the air. The average amount of water in the air barely increases. Of course, this is beside the point because it's non-toxic. There IS NO WAY FOR WATER VAPOR TO CAUSE HARM! This is why steam is not considered a pollutant in any jurisdiction on Earth. It isn't harmful and falls out of the air on it's own.
I am shocked that you could graduate from such a prestigeous university while not having a LICK of basic sense. Try explaining these things to your cat first. If you sound silly, stop before embarassing yourself in an international forum.
It is much more a political scandal than a scientifc one. The political hacks, old unreformed communists and socialists of all ilk have found a new way to control us and bend us to their will in the name of "environment" and since the end justfies the means they do not bat an eyelid when they manipulate scientists through funding controls, grants and bureaucracy (which also shares the control aspects of this enviro-communist agenda) and simple bullying. IPCC does not have 2500 "scientists", majority are bureacracts and special-interest representatives hiding behidn and manipulating scientists.
This "weatherman" is pretty much typical of the narrow and disturbingly unscientific minds that pervade the meteorological profession in general and is most likely a result of not actually being 'scientists' in the classic sense of the word but more in the most basic sense of being able to 'see' weather and speaking. A talking head with talking points.
Science is a discipline. And it takes discipline to be a scientist. Not so to be a 'weatherman'. Facts and real repeatable data and provable well designed and executed experiments meticulously recorded define the world of real science.
Money defines the global warming pseudo scientists and money alone motivates their data set content. It's not science, it's business cum political policy consultants paid enormous sums for predetermined conclusions. After all, there is "no debate", right? What's the need for valid data?
The fraudulent CRU Code is explained well here by a Software Developer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYxk7pnmMFw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gp4sMasX-_8
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monthly_report/sppi_monthly_co2_report_july.html
The Code can be downloaded from http://wattsupwiththat.com/
UPDATE ON COPENHAGEN
Walkout Threatens Obama Presence at Copenhagen
From the Times of India
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/china/Copenhagen-conference-India-China-plan-joint-exit/articleshow/5279771.cms
Obama is considering not attending Copenhagen because of a joint threatened walkout by India, China, Brazil and South Africa, if developed nations don't accept their "non-negotiable" demands.
"The four countries, which include Brazil and South Africa, agreed to a strategy that involves jointly walking out of the conference if the developed nations try to force their own terms on the developing world, Jairam Ramesh, the Indian minister for environment and forests (independent charge), said.
“We will not exit in isolation. We will co-ordinate our exit if any of our non-negotiable terms is violated. Our entry and exit will be collective,” Ramesh told reporters in Beijing."
...The four nations issued a joint press release, which made it clear the developed nations should be ready to contribute funds and share green technology if they expected the developing and poor nations to take major actions on environmental protection."
The global warming effect is fact. It's simple physics, not that any of the above conpsiracy theorists would have a clue. They are far too busy looking for 911 cover up "evidence" to look at any fundamental science to have any understanding and therefore intelligent input to this debate.
However, for those who insist climate change is a communist attack on the free market or whatever should consider this. What's worse? Man-made climate change is real and we do nothing OR it isn't but we do something to change the developed world's unsustainable lifestyle and helping the developing world get a better deal without making our mistakes?
A push to green technology isn't going back to the middle ages, it's about innovation which thousands of scientists worldwide are trying to achieve.
However, I do not agree in the censorship of papers that present plausible work just because they don't agree with current understanding. Debate is key to sound science.
Conspiracy is not, especially if you don't know what you're talking about. Go back to the Diana assasination or whatever you search for on the internet. Porn is probably a healthier habit.
BookerGate - the biggest popular scientific scandal of our time!
Has it ever crossed the minds of the AGW sceptics here that the CRU hack and Booker's hype bears absolutely no relation to reality? Odd that all this should come out just before COP15?
If you're looking for mad conspiracy theories I'd look no further than Booker's article and the depressing number of posts here.
I'd also check out the UEA website for a comprehensive rebuttal of the nonsense in Booker's article.
A warning to everyone: Remember Booker ran a similar campaign some years ago telling told the world asbestos was safe and chemicaly identical to talc - at least 6 people in the UK each day die from asebestos induced mesothelioma (as covered on the BBC news today).
What if that was your kid reassured by Booker that asbestos was safe...only to get an invariably fatal cancer following his advice.
Its very reassuring to know that Global Warming isn't happening, despit the frequency of "freak" weather conditions, and glaciers melting.
Its OK anyway, as we'll have used up all the oil that produces the CO2 that doesn't cause global warming soon anyway. Thank goodness I no longer have to worry about future generations. I'll sleep easier tonight.
Excellent article, Christopher. With your article here, and Ian Plimer in the Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1231673/Global-warming-Dont-wait-The-Earth-tricks-carbon-count-control.html today, the signs are it could be a good week for common sense to start asserting itself over the AGW hype.
Climate sceptics welcome U-turn
http://www.watoday.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-sceptics-welcome-uturn-20091130-jzli.html
But Ink (6:55pm):
All of our energy consumption is based on carbon: ever heard of phothsynthesis -this is how plants make carbon-based sugars that everything else lives from; ever heard of carbohydrates -this is the carbon-laced sugars that our bodies consume;
ever heard of respiration -this is what humans do to stay alive, including breathing out CO2;
Scientific inquiry has been co-opted for income redistribution using "The Cloward - Piven Strategy" model. The choice is ours people, we can call these rats on their skullduggery, or let them turn our world on it's ear, to further a Marxist ideology.
The Malfeasant Media here in America has chosen the Marxist path, Americans now must rely on the UK, Asia and Down-Under for honest news. Even Pravda has been more forthcoming.
Please keep up the good work, we here, across the pond, are depending on you.
"For reasons as yet not understood the media are only able to visit and take pictures during the melt period."
Nicely said, Mick J!
Nothing unusual happening doesn't sell papers or attract viewers.
Whatever happened to necrotising fasciitis?
We are becoming more cynical by the day, whenever we hear the terms 'scientist' and 'expert'.
Shocking...
The next thing you know it'll be discovered the moon landings were faked, the holocaust is a lie, and 911 was an inside job!
waitaminit..
Fudsdad on November 30, 2009 at 10:43 AM
"Can anyone please point me to the scientific explanation of how the increase in CO2 leads to feedback effects that will cause runaway warming, sea level rises etc? I am willing to accept that increased CO2 could have a small effect on temperature, but how does the feedback work to increase water vapour? Does this science exist only in a black box in Norwich?"
There appears to be no presence of this positive forcing hypothesis outside of computer models - not that I have found, at least, and the models are not evidence. As to the colour of the box(es) and their location, your guess is as good as mine.
It's a catchy phrase, though - 'it only exists in a black box in Norwich.' I wonder for how much longer?
"If the climate is not warming then why are the ice caps melting?
A few data cheats does not make the underlying fact untrue."
And your data to support this is where???
I have seen data that says while the areas of ice where scientists have said the Ice Cap is melting is equally (or more) offset in areas where its GROWING.
The ice caps are NOT a static land mass. They grow and shrink. You can also correlate the possible shrinking of ice caps to solar activity (which causes some Warming to the earth in 10 year cycles (solar min, solar max).
Again one must ALWAYS be careful when drawing a conclusion from a correlation. Especially if you do not have ALL the data.
Example: In NY city the sale of ice cream goes up in the summer. Also the murder rate goes up in the summer. Therefore one can conclude the consumption of ice cream leads to increased murders.
Rediculous... yes. But by tampering with data this is exactly what the CRU did.
The worst scientific scandal is the fossil fuel funded denial machine which even reached the highest levels in the White House.
google
white house cooney
For those of you who wish to examine this so-called "Climategate" in more detail please read:-
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/sources-on-cru-hacked-files/
Dr Phillip Bratby
on November 28, 2009
at 09:12 PM
"Firstly the concept of a single temperature of the earth is nonsensical. How can an average of temperatures which range from -50C in Antartcica to +50C in deserts and which change from day to night and through the seasons have any meaning?"
As I am sure you well know, the concept of temperature is merely an indicator to the amount of energy associated with the planet's atmosphere.
The real question is; is the amount of energy contained in the atmosphere increasing or decreasing?
And we seem to have little idea of the answer to this question, and with the scientists having become politicised, little chance of finding an answer
Now we know who the real "deniers" are.
I beg to differ. The picture at the head of this article showing steam pollution spewing into the environment is spot on. Don’t get the vapours over CO2 (joke)! Seriously though, it’s only a trace gas. Water vapour is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 and has now grown to very dangerous levels indeed, some 0.9836% of the atmosphere!
I am an engineering graduate of one of the top ten technical universities in the world (Ref: The Times University Guide). Do you Global Warming deniers realise how much steam is pumped into the atmosphere from domestic kettles alone? I have calculated that from the time when tea was first imported, the UK is responsible for 24.142% of the water vapour content of the air we need to breathe to survive. This has got to stop NOW!
In the subcontinent there are approximately 6,314,291 people directly dependent on tea production for survival. These people will lose their livelihood when the plantations are all destroyed, as planned, and to be fair we are going to have to compensate them at the rate of £1,158.31 per head per annum, on average, for the foreseeable future. In the first instance, for obvious administrative reasons, it is envisaged that the fund to achieve this will have to be provided from private sources. This is URGENT! All who wish to take part should please post here the fact of their willingness to contribute and each will be contacted in due course.
As a postscript let me remind you of the following, which is a little off-topic, but only a little: The British Isles were populated 12,015 years ago. The first arrivals came in on foot because both the English Channel and the Irish Sea were dry land at that time. Very soon afterwards sea levels rose catastrophically. Is it then a MERE coincidence that immediately after the arrival of these people the ice cover over what later became the UK began a rapid retreat? I think not.
paul, a few data cheats ! we are talking about destroying western civilization basically. don't you want that based on real data. for those who want to believe and ignore real science, then try asking yourself a basic question. people like Al Gore acting as if he is out to save humanity why does he need to make millions of dollars doing it? he was already a rich man. we are all going to die soon so why the need to profit from it, if you did survive what would you need money for?
After they have taxed western civilization out of existence they then can claim selling offsets did the trick we are all saved.This is a win win situation for them.wake up this is a giant con game! China and India the biggest polluters, say no thanks while the west goes down in flames.This also should be causing alarm bells to go off in your head. The west is losing a war without one shot fired!
shame on these cheats.they r the real terrorists of 21st century.
If the climate is not warming then why are the ice caps melting?
------------
The answer to that is trivially simple.
The ice caps aren't melting. Never have been.
The Antarctic continues to set records in the extent of sea ice, and the continent as a whole continues to cool.
The Arctic did see a dramatic drop in sea ice a few years ago, but that was caused by a single year change in sea and air circulation patterns. The ice has since recovered to near normal levels.
If there is a mortal sin in the realm of science, it is the deliberate falsification of data - regardless of the motivation. These liars should never get another penney of public funds.
Frankly, those involved in perpetuating the man-made global warming pseudo-science have done so for grants and other forms of research funds. In doing so, they have prostituted the institution of science and themselves.
This "secret data" business should have made everyone question the validity of the research. In my field (Accountancy), all empirical research is accompanied by the statement that the data is either available from the authors or available from public sources. The only people who rely on "secret data" (or who refuse to share it) are those with an ideological axe to grind.
To Jon Hutto
Wrong! Steam is clear. What the photograph shows is water vapour.
Well Booker's article has about as much truth as the earth being flat.
Booker's false and politically inspired outrage has nothing whatsover to do with science.
95% of the CRU raw data sets -as all scientists know - has been absolutely freely available for many many years.
The only raw data that has been witheld relates to a very small amount of source data from other countries where decades old agreements to share this data with CRU have limited open publication.
There has been no deletion of material to hide figures or support trends.
The whole picture Booker is trying to create of dishonesty and witholding of information is itself a massive fabrication... clearly planned to coincide with COP15.
The Daily Telegraph should be deeply ashamed for publishing this nonsense.
Coincidentally on Breakfast TV they interviewed a teacher dying from asbestos induced mesothelioma...exactly the asbestos Mr Booker repeatedly said was chemically identical to and as safe as talc.
When will all you sceptics wake up to Booker's nonsense...and the real scandal is he's allowed to get away with it.
Meanwhile the glaciers and ice sheets - including Antartica are melting. But as sceptics you'd deny this too despite overwhelming evidence.
Where's Peter Simmonds when you want him to give a reasoned, fluent response to this article?
Let us do a few simple scientific thought experiments. I think even non scientists can understand my thinking.
Experiment 1
We have a glass vessel, about 1000 liters, flushed and filled with 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen, representing the earth and its atmosphere at the beginning.
We have a probe on the side, in the middle, connected to a thermocouple and a temperature recorder. We have a large heating element in the middle of the vessel. The vessel is closed from the outside. The outside temperature and humidity is kept constant, at all times.
A measured amount of energy is released into the vessel. The resulting increase of the temperature in the vessel is recorded until it falls back to the base line. The area below the curve is measured. The measurements are repeated until a constant result can be reported. (A)
We now double the amount of energy released into the vessel, this increase representing the doubling of energy released by human activity on earth from 3.5 billion people in 1960 to 7 billion people in 2009. The area below the curve is measured. The measurements are repeated until a constant result can be reported. (B)
In the case of this first experiment, the result is predictable i.e. if you double the amount of energy released in a vessel you should find close to a doubling of the area under your graph. This already proves that Henry’s theory rather than a 25% increase since 1960 in carbon dioxide may have some bearing on global warming. (For the time being Henry’s theory is still that global warming is caused by people releasing energy when flying, moving, cooking or just wanting to stay warm or cold)
Experiment 2
Experiment 2 is exactly the same as experiment 1, but now the vessel is filled with 80/20 N2/O2 + 350 ppm CO2. The results are C en D. What would be interesting for us to know is the difference between A and C and between B and D – in other words: if we release similar amounts of energy into the vessel, what effects, if any, does the carbon dioxide have on temperature retention inside the vessel?
From my investitagtions I have come to learn that the 350 ppm CO2 added in this experiment would aparrently be too small to have any effect on heat retention. In other words: there is no measurable difference between A and C and between B and D.
So now, from these simple thought experiments I have made the following conclusions:
a) the 70 ppms of CO2 added to the atmosphere since 1960 have had no measurable influence on heat retention (in this experiment)
b) if we add another 70 ppm’s (on top of the 350) it is doubtful that this will show any effect at all on same measurements , i.e. still no measurable heat retention in this experiment.
C) if anything, assuming the atmosphere is indeed a greenhouse, the result from experiment 1 must mean that global warming is caused by humans releasing energy in the atmosphere. That means: only that energy that we steal from nature is green (solar, wind, gravity, tidal etc.). Nuclear is not green, H2/O2 combustion (rocket fuel) is not green, fossil fuel is not green.
It seems that CO2 is just made a major culprit because it suits certain interest groups. “What else can it be?” let us have planet, add some CO2, see if the temperature goes up, it did, so that must be it.
Unfortunately, I think some decent testing would reveal that the CO2 is not to blame, at least not at current concentrations. What I found is: they used experiments with 100% CO2 and then extrapolated the results to smaller concentrations. You cannot do that. You always have to do your measurements at relevant concentrations, i.e. 0.02 – 0.05% (200-500 ppm) CO2
I have now proven to you that CO2 is not to blame. If you don’t believe me, do your own experiment (like I described), and please do report your results to me.
Ok! Here are a few quick experiemnts to prove that CO2 is harmless. I think even non scientists can understand my thinking.
Experiment 1
We have a glass vessel, about 1000 liters, flushed and filled with 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen, representing the earth and its atmosphere at the beginning.
We have a probe on the side, in the middle, connected to a thermocouple and a temperature recorder. We have a large heating element in the middle of the vessel. The vessel is closed from the outside. The outside temperature and humidity is kept constant, at all times.
A measured amount of energy is released into the vessel. The resulting increase of the temperature in the vessel is recorded until it falls back to the base line. The area below the curve is measured. The measurements are repeated until a constant result can be reported. (A)
We now double the amount of energy released into the vessel, this increase representing the doubling of energy released by human activity on earth from 3.5 billion people in 1960 to 7 billion people in 2009. The area below the curve is measured. The measurements are repeated until a constant result can be reported. (B)
In the case of this first experiment, the result is predictable i.e. if you double the amount of energy released in a vessel you should find close to a doubling of the area under your graph. This already proves that Henry’s theory rather than a 25% increase since 1960 in carbon dioxide may have some bearing on global warming. (For the time being Henry’s theory is still that global warming is caused by people releasing energy when flying, moving, cooking or just wanting to stay warm or cold)
Experiment 2
Experiment 2 is exactly the same as experiment 1, but now the vessel is filled with 80/20 N2/O2 + 350 ppm CO2. The results are C en D. What would be interesting for us to know is the difference between A and C and between B and D – in other words: if we release similar amounts of energy into the vessel, what effects, if any, does the carbon dioxide have on temperature retention inside the vessel?
From my investitagtions I have come to learn that the 350 ppm CO2 added in this experiment would aparrently be too small to have any effect on heat retention. In other words: there is no measurable difference between A and C and between B and D.
So now, from these simple thought experiments I have made the following conclusions:
a) the 70 ppms of CO2 added to the atmosphere since 1960 have had no measurable influence on heat retention (in this experiment)
b) if we add another 70 ppm’s (on top of the 350) it is doubtful that this will show any effect at all on same measurements , i.e. still no measurable heat retention in this experiment.
C) if anything, assuming the atmosphere is indeed a greenhouse, the result from experiment 1 must mean that global warming is caused by humans releasing energy in the atmosphere. That means: only that energy that we steal from nature is green (solar, wind, gravity, tidal etc.). Nuclear is not green, H2/O2 combustion (rocket fuel) is not green, fossil fuel is not green.
It seems that CO2 is just made a major culprit because it suits certain interest groups. “What else can it be?” let us have planet, add some CO2, see if the temperature goes up, it did, so that must be it.
Unfortunately, I think some decent testing would reveal that the CO2 is not to blame, at least not at current concentrations. What I found is: they used experiments with 100% CO2 and then extrapolated the results to smaller concentrations. You cannot do that. You always have to do your measurements at relevant concentrations, i.e. 0.02 – 0.05% (200-500 ppm) CO2
I have now proven to you that CO2 is not to blame. If you don’t believe me, do your own experiment (like I described), and please do report your results to me.
Ok! let us do a few simple scientific thought experiments. I think even non scientists can understand my thinking.
Experiment 1
We have a glass vessel, about 1000 liters, flushed and filled with 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen, representing the earth and its atmosphere at the beginning.
We have a probe on the side, in the middle, connected to a thermocouple and a temperature recorder. We have a large heating element in the middle of the vessel. The vessel is closed from the outside. The outside temperature and humidity is kept constant, at all times.
A measured amount of energy is released into the vessel. The resulting increase of the temperature in the vessel is recorded until it falls back to the base line. The area below the curve is measured. The measurements are repeated until a constant result can be reported. (A)
We now double the amount of energy released into the vessel, this increase representing the doubling of energy released by human activity on earth from 3.5 billion people in 1960 to 7 billion people in 2009. The area below the curve is measured. The measurements are repeated until a constant result can be reported. (B)
In the case of this first experiment, the result is predictable i.e. if you double the amount of energy released in a vessel you should find close to a doubling of the area under your graph. This already proves that Henry’s theory rather than a 25% increase since 1960 in carbon dioxide may have some bearing on global warming. (For the time being Henry’s theory is still that global warming is caused by people releasing energy when flying, moving, cooking or just wanting to stay warm or cold)
Experiment 2
Experiment 2 is exactly the same as experiment 1, but now the vessel is filled with 80/20 N2/O2 + 350 ppm CO2. The results are C en D. What would be interesting for us to know is the difference between A and C and between B and D – in other words: if we release similar amounts of energy into the vessel, what effects, if any, does the carbon dioxide have on temperature retention inside the vessel?
From my investitagtions I have come to learn that the 350 ppm CO2 added in this experiment would aparrently be too small to have any effect on heat retention. In other words: there is no measurable difference between A and C and between B and D.
So now, from these simple thought experiments I have made the following conclusions:
a) the 70 ppms of CO2 added to the atmosphere since 1960 have had no measurable influence on heat retention (in this experiment)
b) if we add another 70 ppm’s (on top of the 350) it is doubtful that this will show any effect at all on same measurements , i.e. still no measurable heat retention in this experiment.
C) if anything, assuming the atmosphere is indeed a greenhouse, the result from experiment 1 must mean that global warming is caused by humans releasing energy in the atmosphere. That means: only that energy that we steal from nature is green (solar, wind, gravity, tidal etc.). Nuclear is not green, H2/O2 combustion (rocket fuel) is not green, fossil fuel is not green.
It seems that CO2 is just made a major culprit because it suits certain interest groups. “What else can it be?” let us have planet, add some CO2, see if the temperature goes up, it did, so that must be it.
Unfortunately, I think some decent testing would reveal that the CO2 is not to blame, at least not at current concentrations. What I found is: they used experiments with 100% CO2 and then extrapolated the results to smaller concentrations. You cannot do that. You always have to do your measurements at relevant concentrations, i.e. 0.02 – 0.05% (200-500 ppm) CO2
I have now proven to you that CO2 is not to blame. If you don’t believe me, do your own experiment (like I described), and please do report your results to me.
The photo at the top of this article says it all, the photo shows steam coming out of cooling towers. The only CO2 in this phot os the stuff in the air. These "climate change" gurus are the luddites of our age but instead of being driven by fear of change they are driven by greed for government and UN grants and the need to see their names in the media.
Why wasn't this article front page headlines. This is a more important issue than poorly run hospitals, Iraq inquiry etc etc
This article is a jaw-dropping revelation of the hoax that is Man Made Global Warming, from a liberal publication, from a liberal nation.
I have only two problems with this article:
1. It claims man-made global warming is the biggest scientific hoax ever. While it may have been the most intentional, things like Big Bang, mutational evolution and abiogenesis more than rival it.
2. The article fails to tell the scientists' grand motive - and you will never hear it in ANY publication. The New World Order was trying to use the multi-$Trillion$ antidote to cripple the nations so they'd be more malleable to subsequent NWO objectives.
We should all be very glad that Booker has the guts to put his head above the parapet and take on the climate change lobby, which has assumed the mantle of the Spanish Inquisition! I am perticularly grateful for his recent book, and I am now working my way through Prof Ian Plimer's book "Heaven and Earth", which ought to be force fed to everyone who thinks that Al Gore is the modern John the Baptist, if not the actual Messiah! I also commend to attention the final leader article in "The Economist" dated 28/11, entitled "A Heated Debate". A masterpiece in fence sitting, it at least argues for an open minded approach.
Christopher Booker is only a Journalist for a newspaper, having no credentials, as a Climatologist. He is only paid to write a story, connected to the Political leaning, of the apparent newspaper he is writing for. Also, due to the enormous information we see on the Internet, more, and more people are becoming aware that Mainstream Media, and Newspapers, are obviously controlled by Governments with an agenda. Global Warming may not be caused by Man, however it is very real, as evident in the Poles, and Glaciers, shown melting very rapidly.
Where's Peter Simmonds when you want him to give a reasoned, fluent response to this article?
I am so very grateful to whoever it is who hacked the computers and brought this to light. Hopefully it isn't too late to save the world from the huge expense of and futile attempt to bring down the average temperature of the world.
Christopher Booker's book is misnamed: The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the Obsession with 'Climate Change' Turning Out to be the Most Costly Scientific Blunder in History?
It should be named "The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the Obsession with 'Climate Change' Turning Out to be the Most Costly Scientific DECEPTION in History?"
This unwillingness to allow debate and attempts to silence the critics and hide data that don't agree, etc. - could it be more widespread in science than we would like to think? I think of the movie "Expelled" and I wonder if the Darwinists too are not guilty of some of this.
Is the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit assessed by the RAE?
What do they say about 'tricks' and trying to influence peer review?
a warning to all britsh , europeans and the rest of the world..
this false science is the precursor to a new system of currency ...the tax will be used to supprort the new world currency after the controlled bankruptcy of the present system : googel : pope + new world order
THis is a papal plot to grab the earth. through their european order experiment by getting everyone into debt...
the Climate GAte should be built upon to defeat these thugs who work against freedom..
always have always will
don't let this fight go ..u got them on their knees with this one..
a class action suit should be brought against IPCC ..human rights violation case in the hague...sue al gore and his glodman sachs thug inc and that indian traitor , MR persaud..
Well I am so angry about all this. I even made a deliberate change in career direction because I thought there was a major problem, and that I had the necessary engineering experience to make a valid contribution to the pursuit of renewable energies etc.
But what in reality do we have running the show? A bunch of corrupt charlatans whose so-called "science" has been found out for what it is - a big lie! How can any of their so-called "scientific papers or studies" now hold any legitimacy? Surely it is all invalid? It is just is plain ludicrous.
I for one am joining The Global Warming Policy Foundation - http://www.thegwpf.org/.
Believe me there are some big-hitters in this group. I want my voice heard even if the mainstream media is under orders not to report this.
yes a few data cheats MAKES THE underlying fact untrue.
IT makes it Wrong and the intent to cheat makes it criminal!
Kim below says AGW is like a religion. I think a difference is that whereas religious people believe their religion's claims, many AGW supporters do not actually believe what they preach.
Suppose there was £100,000,000 to be handed out in grants at £30,000 at a time to prove the earth is flat. It would be soon gone, and the only limiting factor would be the time it took to process the grant applications. The same applies to the AGW scam. If you want to study penguins, simply link it somehow to AGW.
And the interesting thing about this type of scam is that when it has collapsed, many will be claiming "Well, of course, I was one of those who had my doubts from the start...". It is like after the war when there were hardly any SS soldiers to be found - only ordinary soldiers and civilians.
As for this being the biggest scientific scandal of our generation - perhaps it is in its financial implications, but, in the way their beliefs are shielded from scientific scrutiny, and in the way their speculations are presented as indisputable facts, this type of approach has been applied by the Darwinism believers for much longer and on a larger scale. Scientists soon abandon their principles when science and politics are mixed (AGW), or science and religion (atheism) are mixed.
Arctic Ocean Model explains the ice caps melting, which is not man made
http://home.earthlink.net/~icedneuron/EssenhighViewpoint.htm#Revision
Its absolutely criminal that these people within the climate change agenda were caught red handed falsifying data. Then caught trying to dump the data as fast as they could.
Where's the Main Stream Media on this one?
Probably hiding as well since they propped up this bunch of misfits with every conceivable form of mass media they could provide.
I work for a coal fired generating plant that is targetted for closure due to progressive liberal government intervention in the electrical generating system. All the data use to make the case for coal plant closure was derived from this fraudulent material and people of the climate change agenda. Shouldn't I and my other workers now have the right to slam a class action law suit against the leaders of government and others in the climate change crowd who affected my employment? I want my pound of flesh out of this.
And we are supposed to see science as some new basis for morality - heaven help us!
It seems Scientism is as dangerous a religion as any other. Though I suppose the main difference between it and good ol' anglicanism is the latter's failings happened in the distant past and the leaders of the world aren't fawning over themselves to back Doc. Williams.
Aren't we supposed to be more noble, more educated more moral now that Britain is becoming a secular utopia?
There is another scandal involved with "global warming" that hasn't been told yet. It's the behind the scene story on how this junk science has been used. While many have written about Dr. Sandor (Father of Financial Trading turned to Father of Carbon Trading), nowhere that I can find have they written about how American Electric Power (US's largest electric company) joined forces with him to come up with the world's carbon trading platform. To see the story unfold Goggle a few things like: Dr. Sandor, Chicago Climate Exchange, AEP , AEP board policy (look for 2006 version) and Mr. Bruce Braine. You'll find that in 1999 Dr. Sandor joined Northwestern Univ. Kellogg School of Business. He applied for a grant from the Joyce Foundation (on whose board Obama sat) and began talks about joining AEP's board of directors. Mr. Braine, AEP's VP of Policy Analysis, began working with Dr. Sandor in the development of CCX and its affiliates. By 2000 the pieces were in place, by 2002 CCX was in place, in 2003 AEP became a Founding Member of CCX and in 2006 Goldman Sachs bought into CCX and helped fund efforts to get legislation passed.
How could this all happen when AEP had a Ethics and Conflict of Interst policy that prohibits conflicts of interest? I've been assured in a letter from Mr. Keane (AEP's General Counsel) that there is no conflict of interest while even my bank staff, post officer clerk and many others saw it clearly.
The question that comes to me is when will the rest of the world see this for what it is. Now AEP is asking the US government to fund half of a project ($334 million US) that will strip CO2 and pump it underground for storage! One more piece in manufactured science and global greed. All the while Dr. Sandor continues to build his worldwide platform for carbon trading and gaining respect as one of the great citizens of the world.
Can you say "The Emporer's New Clothes".
Like Holocaust denial these allegations against the excepted view of global warming ignore the very real and observable evidence. What about the disintegration of glaciers around the world, changes in bird migration, insects populations, fish populations, flowering dates, the frequency of extreme weather, etc. etc? These are separate branches of science all independently coming to the same conclusion. The idea that these scientists are fabricating evidence to keep their funding is very weak, akin to saying that doctors tell people they are ill in order to keep their jobs.
Obama will skip to Copenhagen with his fingers in his ears screaming, "I don't hear you". Obama is ignoring Climate-gate! Obmama is staying on schedule to give away U.S.-borrowed money from China, to developing countries, for the U.S.-made Global warming hoax. All fantasy in the fairyland of Obama left-wing Blame America first crowd.
Noble Lord
on November 30, 2009
at 11:47 AM
"@The BNP Wants to Steal My Passport
on November 30, 2009
at 09:45 AM
What I find typical of sheeple is when they believe and then sarcastically attack others who don’t, in the main putting up “Strawmen” and publicly beating it to death, so to speak."
Err, that's not my quote Noble Lord - believe me I would never describe human beings as sheeple. A horrible, arrogant construct. And that's my point really, I know little more than the next person, but the evidence appears to me incontrovertible that a large percentage of DT readers want to believe that AGW is some type of scam, when the trail clearly leads to obsfuscation by Big Oil. Only one side makes money out of this, and its not the side that advocates cheap, clean renewable energy
Peace & love
At the risk of being pedantic, it may help your case if you used the correct terminology when reviewing how scientists fudged data programmatically using complex computer programs written in Fortran etc.
Complex programs, not "complex computer programmes". Their work might have been part of a programme of work or set of projects but that is clearly not what you meant.
On such points of accuracy are arguments lost or won as the scientists in this case are going to find out to their cost.
As for Mr Dellingpole's invention of the term Climategate. My gosh, how original! I hope he moves to have the term patented.
"If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file [of raw station data] rather than send to anyone." The words of Professor Phil Jones in 2005, director of the Climate Research Unit, Norwich.
Except now they try to tell us that the data was deleted "due to lack of storage in the 1980s". So what was Dr Jones talking about deleting...?
Those who proclaim man-made global warming all point to the science being beyond debate because of the computer models.
But wait - only one of these models can be right; all of the others must be wrong. As none of the models predicted several years of cooling, it ought to be admitted that all of the models are wrong. You don't need to be a scientist to arrive at this conclusion, you just need to use common sense.
Also, applying the law of Occam's Razor - the simplest explanation tends to be the best one - it would make sense to posit that the sun is more likely to control our climate, for cooler or warmer, than a miniscule amount of CO2.
Burning CO2 is simply releasing back into the atmosphere what used to be there; this does not support the idea that the Earth will be destroyed by slightly higher quantities of CO2.
I suggest that we ignore the scientists are ask the philosophers and historians for their opinions.
paul j. weighell on November 30, 2009 at 11:47 AM
"If the climate is not warming then why are the ice caps melting? "
The sea ice at the poles melts every year, for the north pole it is about 10 million square kilometres, winter comes and it freezes again. For reasons as yet not understood the media are only able to visit and take pictures during the melt period. There are variations in total extent and 2007 was a low point, the two summers since have shown recovering from this
This can be seen at http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.jpg
The Antarctic sea ice extent is higher than average, indeed highest for 30 years, the satellite monitoring period. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg
The site where these images are located "the cryosphere today" is an official site and anyone ca check the current state. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
As to the cause a number of the scientific papers points to cyclic changes in wind and sea currents, these pushing the ice towards the north Atlantic where it melts.
Below that is a 2009 paper from an IPCC and Met office connected scientist that makes the case for the melt extent min and max being cyclic and caused by the Atlantic Multidecal Oscillation which is going negative at present.
You will, of course, note that this is not presented in the media nor green organisations in the lead up to the Tax Giveaway planned next week.
-----------------------------------
here is a recently published paper in GRL which concludes that the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation was the major driver of the recent temperature changes of te Arctic.
Chylek, P., C. K. Folland, G. Lesins, M. K. Dubey, and M. Wang (2009): Arctic air temperature change amplification and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (published 16 July 2009)
From the abstract:
Temperature trend reversals in 1940 and 1970 separate two Arctic warming periods (1910–1940 and 1970–2008) by a significant 1940–1970 cooling period. Analyzing temperature records of the Arctic meteorological stations we find that:
#1 the Arctic amplification (ratio of the Arctic to global temperature trends) is not a constant but varies in time on a multi-decadal time scale.
#2 the Arctic warming from 1910–1940 proceeded at a significantly faster rate than the current 1970–2008 warming.
#3 the Arctic temperature changes are highly correlated with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) suggesting the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation is linked to the Arctic temperature variability on a multi-decadal time scale.
C. K. Folland is affiliated with the UK Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Change and he was an author of the IPCC Third Assessment Report. Despite this he just have been co-authored an article which tries to demonstrate that most of the recently observed warming in the Arctic region is due to natural causes. Itt seems to me a ‘great leap backward’ from previous statements.
"If the climate is not warming then why are the ice caps melting?
A few data cheats does not make the underlying fact untrue." - Paul J Weighell
A moment's thought should have shown you that anything you have read on "the ice caps melting" has come from the same sort of people who having been fiddling the data.
The arctic has a melt every year and then refreezes again. It varies from year to year, and we only have 30 or so years of observations (most of which was during a temperature upswing) so we don't know if what we're seeing is ununusual or not e.g. did the poles melt in the 1930s or the medieval warm period or the Roman one. We don't know.
Meanwhile, most of Antarctica is actually getting colder, despite seriously fraudulent attempts to suggest otherwise. Icebergs off New Zealand are a result of excess ice being formed due to the extreme cold and so breaking off the pack.
Don't believe the scares - it's propaganda pure and simple.
Its apparent that the IPCC's Nobel Prize, which Al Gore shares, should be wholly rescinded if it wishes to retain what little credibility it has left, and I do mean LITTLE! I'm not a scientist, but have had an avid interest for years and even I knew that what they were saying was Bullpatties of the first order. Who pays these clowns anyway? These guys are not only charlatans they are incompetent as scientists! How many more of these "academics" are out there who should be manning the counter at McDonalds rather than "conducting research"?
God protect us from the arrogance of experts . It is very possible that the earth is warming due to man's actions. It is also very possible that it is nothing to do with us . However only a fool would argue against man erring on the side of caution and trying to do everything to minimise emissions .
John Levett
on November 30, 2009
at 11:37 AM
"get real and begin to understand exactly who is going to benefit from this scam. The status quo IS being preserved and the oil companies ARE involved but not in the so-called sceptic camp - see this other DT article and you'll get the idea:"
I suspect big business will benefit John. Big Oil certainly wants to continue drilling for product and running the USA. Don't forget that Republican Frank Luntz coined the phrase Climate Change because he feared Global Warming was too severe and hoped to challenge the science enough to plant doubt in American voters minds - he knew only too well that attempts to change the economy to a low carbon energy one was a threat to the interests of the Bush Administration and its backers in the Oil Industry.
The fact is the oil will run out, and sooner than we are told - don't forget the recent articles highligting the US governments inflating the amount of reserves so as not to spook the money markets. We really don't have a choice - all this running around crowing about a few stolen emails doesn't change the fact the we need to 'get real' to use your phrase, and soon.
Peace & love
Of course this isn't up for discussion on BBC Radio 2's Jeremy Vine show today.
How can that be?
One more person earlier asked: "If the climate is not warming then why are the ice caps melting?" For the past 10 years the climate has been getting cooler. You should buy a dictionary and encyclopedia and busy yourself for the next 10 years determining the difference between the two words.
And as it's the 50th anniversary of Manty Pythons life of Brian.....
Global Warming...
"scam, scam, scam, scam, scam, scam, scam, scam, scam, scam, scam,
SCAAAAAM Wonderful scam."
Images like the one with this article will further confuse the general public. You do realize that CO2 is clear, and what you are showing above is steam. Right?
MANN MADE GLOBAL WARMING. now we know for sure who the ''men'' are,
I think Siberia would be appropriate to send them to jail.
Thank you Mr Booker,lets hope your voice is not lost in the wilderness.
Fat chance the BBC will do anything about this scandal but at least Glen Beck of Fox News has made a video which is worth looking at.
Please print this blog DT !!!
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/23/glenn-beck-skewers-scientists-involved-climategate
Ekon Bamgbala (as of "I teach physics and we all know the metlign icecaps will inundate us all in carnage .."
It is rare to read something so mindlessly stupid .... in 1 fell swoop you show yourself to be a complete idiot ... making a claim that could have been checked and disproved in 3 minutes ... and also wonderfully show the religious quality so necessary in climate change 'belief'. The evidence doesn't matter, science doesn't matter, alternative views don't matter .... all that matters in the all consuming mindless belief that catastrophe is imminent and ITS ALL OUR FAULT.
Thanks for the own goal.
This is like a policeman planting evidence. He may be doing it for all the right reasons - he may have no doubt at all that the suspect is really guilty and deserves to go to jail - but it's still a criminal fraud. YOU CANNOT FALSIFY EVIDENCE.
If the climate is not warming then why are the ice caps melting?
A few data cheats does not make the underlying fact untrue.
FOR WHAT IT’S WORTH:
@The BNP Wants to Steal My Passport
on November 30, 2009
at 09:45 AM
What I find typical of sheeple is when they believe and then sarcastically attack others who don’t, in the main putting up “Strawmen” and publicly beating it to death, so to speak.
Example, THE BNP WANTS TO STEAL MY PASSPORT SAID:
“Lets try a simple empirical experiment. What subject has the most viewed articles today, in the last week and last month in the Telegraph online? I'll save you the bother of checking - its articles denying the existence of man-made global warming. Now I'm no expert, but I do tend to believe that AGW is real, but what I do know for sure is that there is a whole heap of people deperate to believe its not happening. Why?”
Nice try, but let’s get this clear for those who want to believe in tooth fairies, because the pay is good, or who work to convince others of some.
This is NOT about Climate Change, because we all know the climate changes, to be honest, it’s raining outside and we’ve had an “Indian summer”!
This is NOT about Global Warming, because the Globe has warmed and had periods of cooling!
This is simply about the Talmudists and their Chutzpah, selling us, via World/Global monetary tax and mental arrested development, that HOW WE BEHAVE AND WHAT WE DO, IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IT!
This is what they are using to fund their war on the free peoples of the world and I totally agree with Lord Christopher Monckton, these people need to be locked up and a good look at that UN, which pretty much serves Israel and Jewish purposes, must be replaced with a more honest and incorruptible body.
@Kim L
on November 30, 2009
at 09:45 AM
“When people ask about global warming they ask "do you believe in global warming ?" . For me science is not about belief . Belief is the domain of religion . Therefore global warming is not science but is religion . And it is a religion with it's clergy , Al Gore as Pope , Cardinals , Archbishops etc”
Nice analogy and I wouldn’t ordinarily pull you up on a nice analogy, which does have some elements of truth to it, but it is the assumption, which is based on hear say, ie I’ve heard that before and it sound good/plausible, so I’ll add that to my next conversation piece and thus, the same mental diseases spreads and another person uses the same mantra.
Science is formed from faith, then observation, then calulation, then assessment, then knowledge, then word of mouth, then etched in stone, then to papyrus, if you will and then to paper and to school and then to you“!
On that basis, we can safely say and have faith in belief, because it has been through a process and that process, albeit not pointed out by myself, takes a long period of time to know.
I believe the sun will rise tomorrow and I will wake to see it!
I believe the world is circular and not flat, yet I have not been in space to view it!
I believe Climategate to be the Talmudic scam, and further attack on the free peoples of the world, because they brought YOU 911 and YOU defended it and believed it, WITH OUT considering if the mass of sheeple put the story through the process, ie observed and read the evidence.
WATCH 911 MISSING LINKS HERE BELOW:
http://thelastoutpost.com/video-1/911/missing-911-links.html
YOU believe that Germans carried out a Holocaust on 6 million Jews, yet YOU have not put the claim through the process and to point out that a Holocaust is a sacrificial sacrement unto God, involving a Lamb/Sheep, or Cattle, yet I’ve never heard that German camp guards were herding any such thing.
So what did occur, a Genocide? A mass slaughter? A tickling under the armpits?
None of which can be considered insulting, when the EU has a law of “Holocaust Denial”???
I deny no holocaust, the bible is littered with examples of the holy burnt offerings.
My point is, if you view this documentary below, YOU MAY COME TO REALISE THAT SELLING SCAMS IS AN ART FORM, OF THE TALMUDISTS AND MUCH OF THAT ART IS CREATED IN Talmudic controlled Hollywood and Cemented in your mind, that what they create there is reality!
THE DOCUMENTARY BELOW, WAS NOT CREATED IN HOLLYWOOD, NO EMOTIONAL MUSIC HERE:
http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=4138523842550891901#
David Cole a Jewish Holocaust skeptic, makes is stunning and brave documentary, proving Gas chambers at Auschwits are fake and were built AFTER WWII!
Part One
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=976870941610001004&ei=Mf7LSKHcJozQiAKo6_3LAg&q=david+cole+auschwitz#
Part Two
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-441640420550012012&q=david+cole+auschwitz&total=28&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2#
KIM L, if you believe Jesus/Yesua the Christ did not exist, then that is your right, but today I must remind you of what he said over 2000 years ago, “The truth shall set/make you free” and do I need to remind you of one of the scams you are posting on?
There are plenty more scams we have been sold and each just as disgusting as the other, yet YOU wish to pick and choose what truth you believe, yet you view no evidence, or you are convinced by those who tell you there is no evidence. LOL
Don’t worry, I’m not at all angry with you, have a nice day, I’m assured by the weathermen, that it’s going to feature some sunshine….I didn’t say I believed them now did I. LMAO
Still one more example that the alleged issue of global warming is the result of political science, not the sciences of physics or chemistry. These individuals have been perpetuating a hoax that is the equivalent of Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme in the financial world, with an even more devastating impact on the world's economy. All men of good will can agree on reasonable conservation of our environment, but these are twisted minds who seek to further a political agenda to limit economic growth and redistribute the world's wealth -- the neo-Communists of the 21st Century.
@matt blue
Wind farms are not a good response to climate change even if we allowed the possibility that we have any effects.
You have to step away from the media rhetoric and do some research to find out the grim truth.
Holland, the standard bearer for wind energy, has 19% of its power generated by wind - if you base your count on the rated power of the wind turbines. The reality is a real contribution of somewhere around 3% and much of what electricity they do get is produced at the wrong time and sold to Norway at way below cost.
That's why they've said that enough is enough.
Spain has cancelled all subsidies.
Most power generation facilties also consume power.
Most power stations rate their power based on power released to the grid.
However, wind turbines don't consume their own power because when they need it is often as not when there is no wind. That means that they consume power from the grid but it isn't accounted for.
So rated capacity is a bit of a misleading term. For a variety of reasons we never get anywhere close to the rated power. Some estimate 20% others perhaps as little as 10%. The Dutch experience would seem to suggest somewhere between the two.
Use the internet wisely and you'll find all the reports you need. 'll start you off with this one:
http://www.aweo.org/ProblemWithWind.html
Be sure to follow the links in the article and especially to the section on power consumption:
http://www.aweo.org/windconsumption.html
and most especially to the Cefn Croes wind farm home page. Far from being environmentally friendly the add-ons mean they may never recover the CO2 released in their manufacture and construction and they cause substantially damage to the environment.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hills/cc/index.htm
But, our lords and masters like them.
Lost? Or destroyed? "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file [of raw station data] rather than send to anyone." The words of Professor Phil Jones in 2005, director of the Climate Research Unit, Norwich.
The BNP Wants to Steal My Passport
on November 30, 2009
at 09:45 AM said:
"Now I'm no expert, but I do tend to believe that AGW is real, but what I do know for sure is that there is a whole heap of people deperate to believe its not happening. Why? What in the wide world of sports is so wrong in weaning ourselves off soon to be exhausted hydrocarbons (exhausted within the next 25 years I'd wager)? Only Big Oil {the perpetrater of the real scam) has any real interest in maintaining the status quo.."
I don't think any of us are desperate to believe that it's not happening: we've long suspected that the case is bogus and thanks to the evasiveness of AGW camp, the CRU leak is as close as we've come to having an informed debate on the matter.
On your second point, you may be right about the exhaustion of hydrocarbons (although I think you'll find there will be plenty of supplies once this nonsense has sufficiently skewed the market) but that is an entirely separate debate. It is not an excuse to falsify data and create a body of 'scientific' theory for the purposes of social engineering. (By the way, if hydrocarbons are really going to be exhausted within 25 years, doesn't that solve the warmists' problem?).
Lastly, for your own sake, get real and begin to understand exactly who is going to benefit from this scam. The status quo IS being preserved and the oil companies ARE involved but not in the so-called sceptic camp - see this other DT article and you'll get the idea: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/businesslatestnews/6686057/European-Climate-Exchange-chief-Patrick-Birley-defends-the-carbon-trading-system.html.
What started as green idealism has been hijacked by governments and corporate interests as an excuse to limit your freedoms and rob you blind: there'll be no environmental benefit.
All the global warming scamers will be gathered in Copenhagen in December. That will make it easy to round them up and throw them all in jail for fraud against the world.
" 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."
OED:
"Travesty /'travisti/ n & v. - a grotesque misrepresentation..."
To whichever ineloquent 'Climate Scientist' unwittingly used the term in its correct context...:
Spot on Chaps!
Now give us the facts (ALL of them) and let us decide.
The Great Global Warming Swindle exposed the uns bogus IPCC reports for what they were, a politically driven report backed up by dishonest scientists. Several scientists resigned from there board of deceivers in disgust over the deception they were being co erced in. They've done the same with evolution, giving their lies a cloake of professionalism with bogus science.
"The International Community" (Communist proto-World Government) have the perfect cover for their final conquest and they are not going to drop their creation.
After all, everyone knows that CO2 and pollution drifts across borders, and therefore needs a powerful organisation which controls both sides to tackle it. Just get rid of borders (Switzerland watch out!)
And they get to further oppress the wicked, thinking, conservative, middle classes (who are far more likely to rebel) with 'green' taxes (for ever more Marxist projects and ever more bribes).
But which side are the Camerooons on? !!
NOT A BOOKER FOR BOOKER!
We now know that Christopher Booker's repeated assertions were insightful.
Recent exposure of the University of East Anglia's (UEA's) Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and its collaborators resonates strongly with Booker's analyses.
UEA's refusal to implement an independent inquiry with full access to raw data and their analysis software, raises the most serious questions. Nations are in the process of investing trillions of dollars in combating anthropogenic global warming, an effect that is now extremely questionable.
Booker deserves an award - but not a 'Booker' which is for fiction. This is apparently the preserve of the Climatic Research Unit!
Christopher Booker certainly deserves more of your column inches.
Good report, this sort of thing needed exposing now please look at SPPI website Re: further scandal Copenhagen Treaty page 3 Editorial by Christopher Monkton.
Monty the Dissident Mouse
on November 30, 2009
at 08:14 AM
wrote
"What a laugh! A bunch of social inadequates who equate energy consumption with virility and who once scraped a "D" pass in A-level physics (thus gaining an unparallelled insight into very little at all) lining up behind a man who's classical education left him incapable of appreciating the difference between talc and asbestos. (Sorry to bring that up again, but it is very, very, funny!)"
Here's a link if anybody is interested. Mr Booker's assertion that white asbestos is chemically identical to talcum powder is about halfway down the page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker
Peace & love
Can anyone please point me to the scientific explanation of how the increase in CO2 leads to feedback effects that will cause runaway warming, sea level rises etc? I am willing to accept that increased CO2 could have a small effect on temperature, but how does the feedback work to increase water vapour? Does this science exist only in a black box in Norwich?
This has made my morning - to see so many other people have had quite enough of this alarmist hype too.
I'm still nipping myself to check that Climategate has really happened - the evidence is overwhelming and most sweetly is written in their own hand.
I can fully understand why all those on the AGW payroll/ego circuit are resisting this story like the plague - it's put the kibosh on any further nonsense being foisted on us.
It'll take time to turn the tanker around, but at least we've managed to grab the tiller - that's a great start.
And finally - congrats to the Telegraph and the Times for having the cojones to report this properly - unlike the BBC who seem to still be saying We Can't Hear You.
And frankly Sky are just as bad - they've even admitted to getting a shed load of emails saying - what's going on?
As Stevie Wonder said in his song "Supertistion" = "When you believe in things that you don't understand, and you suffer..."
Prejudice and Ideology, because of Pride in one’s indoctrination, I mean education, believing that the Political people that you have choosen to listen to are smart, honest, and informed, anyone can be tricked into believing anything. The operative word is “tricked”.
From the Beginning, this hoax had “Deception” flashing lights and beeping horning screaming “fraud, fraud, fraud”.
Using Radical Rules the Illuminati dupes create and publish insults against people who still believe in common sense and thinking for one’s self. So, if you think for yourself and you come to a different conclusion than Al Gore and his band of “True Deceiver/Believers”, who have gone to great lengths to block, skew, and prevent a true debate and inquiry, then you are a pejorative, you are a “Climate Denier”.
Medieval Kings had their Jokers but “True Deceivers/Believers” don’t even want the Public to have their “Climate Deniers” especially when they are right. They don’t want them to speak out about their positions, they won’t let them in on any Political or Scientific forums to have their positions presented and explained. No! They refuse to sit down and debate the observable world and the applicable science.
W.C. Fields asked “Who are you going to believe – me or your eyes”? You have to applause at least scale of the Lies. What Al Gore and his band of “True Deceiver/Believers” are actually claiming is a “trace” gas, Carbon Dioxide, CO2, which makes 0.03 percent of the atmosphere, is going to overheat the planet. Notice that all discussions about the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is always, always stated in Tons. Well, since when do we talk about trace gases in tons? There are four (4) so-called greenhouse gases: (1) – Water Vapor, (2) – Argon, (3) Carbon Dioxide, (4) – Methane. Yeah, we got to get rid of all of that Water Vapor. BTW, Mars is heating up, too. Must be all of those SUVs and Coal-Fired Power Plants.
The whole Global Warming/Climate Change crisis is an elaborate ruse designed to panic the populations of the world into giving up their freedoms, their nationalism, and the prosperity – to descend into permanent slavery to people infected with the Marxists-Communist-Socialist-Liberal philosophy. The new EU President has said as much. Notice what they are demanding first – money, money, money. And then power over your life.
Free Your Mind . . . Jesus is Coming Soon
"The International Community" (Developing Communist World Government) have the perfect cover for their final conquest.
After all, everyone knows that CO2 and pollution drifts across borders, and therefore needs a powerful organisation controling both sides. Lets just get rid of borders (Switzerland and Norway watch out!)
And we get to screw down the wicked middle classes driving their gas guzzling Astras (who are far more likely to rebel) in 'green' taxes (for even more Marxist projects and bribes).
But whoes side are the Cameroons on?
Lets try a simple empirical experiment. What subject has the most viewed articles today, in the last week and last month in the Telegraph online? I'll save you the bother of checking - its articles denying the existence of man-made global warming. Now I'm no expert, but I do tend to believe that AGW is real, but what I do know for sure is that there is a whole heap of people deperate to believe its not happening. Why? What in the wide world of sports is so wrong in weaning ourselves off soon to be exhausted hydrocarbons (exhausted within the next 25 years I'd wager)? Only Big Oil {the perpetrater of the real scam) has any real interest in maintaining the status quo - and apparently the readers of the DT.
Peace & love
When people ask about global warming they ask "do you believe in global warming ?" . For me science is not about belief . Belief is the domain of religion . Therefore global warming is not science but is religion . And it is a religion with it's clergy , Al Gore as Pope , Cardinals , Archbishops etc. , it has doctrine and it has tithes - the green taxes . The tithes come from the state therefore it is a state religion . And - as I understand it - we are about to have the inquisition by The Church of Global Warming .
Charles Lee
Sorry, you're still drinking the KoolAid ...
* Acid rain really doesn't cause problems - it was just another scare.
* Recycle? Um, clear glass can be melted and reused - your coloured wine bottles go into the landfill. That's just ONE recycle example.
* Forests? Harvest the mature trees and restart the land's meadow-scrub-tree cycle of life. A lot better for Gia's lungs.
* Overpopulation? Where? The western population is going below replacement levels - isn't that the excuse for immigration?
* Resource of the sea? OK, I'll give you that one, providing you ...
** Save the fish - eat a seal (Ugh! They taste really bad)
** Save the seals - eat a polar bear.
** Save the polar bears, support Global Warming - you don't think the dig down through the ice do you? Oh yes - the polar bear population has gone from 5,000 to 25,000 in the last 10 years. Didn't you see the Inuit kid standing on an ice floe, being stalked by 3 polar bears, until he killed one of them.
RobertT, it is not me who teaches dodgy physics to kids, it is Ekon Bamgbala, who I was responding to.
I will of course gracefully accept your apology for calling me an idiot!
@John 08:13
John, well said sir.
I agree with your assessment 100%.
Too many bloggers are 'emotionally' affected by the whole sordid business.
Especially telegraph Blogger Will Heaven, aptly named, who describes himself as 'A climate rationalist' (commentator on Catholicism , Religion and Politics which I suppose ideally qualifies him to be a rationalist!)
Well Will,
rationalise this:-
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html
Monday morning and this is still running.
Anybody who thinks this is going to go away is dreaming.
Just look back to a couple of months to the "Expenses Scandal".
That started with a moonlighting soldier disgusted with information he was being asked to supress.
This one appears to have started with a targetted attack by a well informed hacker.
Revelations of expenses misuse keep appearing, some MP stepped down only last week.
It seems that to date we have only seen a small sample of the data retrieved from UEA, there is probably more to come.
There are other sites where this data is stored. The "climate dept" at LSE, which used to be at Imperial, for instance. The Grantham Foundation, there must be more here and many more in the States.
This is going to run and run and run.
the only truth is noone really knows what the truth is whichever side of the fence you sit so many stupid comments.Transparency is the key besides wether intended or not the only thing that will be achieved by all these pollies getting together is that energy will cost us all more money this money will simply go to governments to help pay off some of their accumulated debt that we can be certain.
"And to all you witch doctors who believe in evolution you should know that the 'theory' of evolution vialates the 2nd law of thermodynamics that is entropy increases.
That means that things do not get more complex they get more simple.
So how did humans evolve from dogs again?
You fools."
I'm not a physics teacher as you claim to be, but I would think you of all people would know that the 2nd law refers to a closed system not recieving any outside energy, which we clearly do from oh, I don't know... the sun?
Many thanks to Christopher Booker for his integrity!
There are now 13 000 000 hits for "Climategate" on Google. But for many major news outlets it's still zero.
This is not absolutely bad. Because this enables everyone of us to audit our favorite news outlets. If it doesn't cover climategate, you now it has subjected itself to censorship and that it intellectually is equivalent to Pravda.
Re Peter Day "There's so much garbage and misleading info on this from both sides that most people don't care any more."
Peter, they are, and you are going to care a great deal when the proposed climate taxes are levied. If you're looking for misleading info, follow the money!
sandra, wildlife biologist you might be but professional, NOT. YOu would know that 30 years doesn't stand for anything in the march of time, you would know that things are in a constant state of change, you would know that all things ebb and flow not just the tides. you would know these things if you were professional.
===========================================
I was always under the impression that life thrived in the warm and died off in the cold , so why would we be so afraid if the planet warmed up by 1c over the next 100 yrs ?
PS. Tonight's forecast for S.E.England : 'Frost' : watch the plants die !
==========================================
What a laugh! A bunch of social inadequates who equate energy consumption with virility and who once scraped a "D" pass in A-level physics (thus gaining an unparallelled insight into very little at all) lining up behind a man who's classical education left him incapable of appreciating the difference between talc and asbestos. (Sorry to bring that up again, but it is very, very, funny!)
Still, at least the deniers are being called that rather than sceptics: sceptics are open to arguement and information, while this lot just hiss the word "conspiracy" through cracked, yellowing teeth and dribble down their already spittle-flecked chins.
Doesn't this whole CRU business have the appearance of a big trap for climate change deniers
about it? Dear me yes. I mean, just suppose that the inevitable independent enquiry into the raw data DOES come in full square behind the vast majority of scientists who contend that AGW is real? What will the foamers and twitchers do then?
"Good news, now I can continue polluting without the guilt"
That's a red herring, Jonny.
We should continue to reduce the amount of particulates and other toxic components in the air from trucks and cars, simply to make the air more breathable for us in cities.
We should continue to clean up power stations emissions such as sulphur dioxide to eliminate acid rain.
We should continue to economise on the resources of the planet, and recycle as much as possible.
We should continue to protect the forests from unthinking felling.
We should husband the resources of the sea more carefully.
Overpopulation is an issue that must be addressed.
All of these things we should continue to do, but let's not waste resources on the fatuous nonsense that manmade CO2 is the cause of planetary temperature change.
It isn't.
How long before we find the same sort and worse collusion going on regarding the ridiculous and anti-scientific official story of September 11th, 2001 in New York?
Then George Monbiot might start to realise all he ever does is back the wrong horse. of course what we call "gatekeepers" do that all the time.
As with 9/11, the cries of shock and outrage coming from some who hitherto defended the "official propaganda" the point that plenty of people; indeed anybody who cares enough to find out could have known long before, that it is a lie.
The information is easily found, plenty of professionals even in both cases have been telling you all along, but you CHOSE not to listen and it took a complete implosion, the utter public humiliation and destruction of the entire gaggle of conspirators, literally being caught with their fingers in the till so to speak, before you could bring yourself to look to the side even.
I think you're still trying to find a way to hold onto the ideas if you can just cut away the tainted figures now, but that horse has bolted. All that's left is to see how this is now buried so you and others can get back to shilling for the elite interests who you really do like to idolise, you probably think you're part of them. They let you lick their hand so you think you're one of the family eh?
Pah!
I dare the Telegraph to print this!
"Charles Dawson (Al Gore's predecessor) was an amateur British archaeologist who is credited and blamed with discoveries that turned out to be imaginative frauds, including that of the Piltdown man)"
Forgive a small digression here.
About 20 years ago we were looking for a house in Sussex and went to a property in Isfield, just down the road from Piltdown.
It was owned by a very, very old lady.
We mentioned the Piltdown Fraud to her.
It turned out that she was the daughter of the man on whose land Charles Dawson "discovered" the artefacts.
You know how she described the fraudster, remembered from that vast distance back in time?
"That nice Mr Dawson".
Climategate whitewash?
What this world needs is an Al "I invented Green" Gore* mouthwash. Truth has never been a concern of his ... inconvenient or otherwise.
*AKA: "I Invented The Internet"; "Love Story Was About Me And My Wife"; "I Was Really Elected President...Really I Was"; "I Don't Make Money On Global Warming Fears, It's The Principle That Matters".
Dear Ken Lowe
Please attempt to understand that CO2 in concentrations such as we have in atmosphere (386 ppmv current) is not at all dangerous. It would not be dangerous if it were doubled or tripled or quadrupled.
You suffocate from any high concentration of a gas which excludes oxygen. Hence if cars released nitrogen and you inhaled only that nitrogen... you would suffocate as with carbon dioxide. You exhale CO2 every time you breathe and it is present in fizzy drinks...it is harmelss unless it is in high concentrations sufficient to replace much of the oxygen.
Do you suffocate every time you get on a bus or stand in a room with other people?
Carbon Monoxide is however toxic but a different gas.
Earth's Atmosphere:
Nitogen 70%
Oxygen 29%
Water Vapour 1%
If you dry out the water vapour, you are left with the trace gases like argon and carbon dioxide. That's called dry air analysis.
STOP SCARING YOURSELF KEN - CO2 is harmless plant food. Atmospheric concentrations from human emissions could never reach more than triple todays value before hydrocarbon fuels are exhausted. 1200 ppmv would not be detectable by or in any way harmful to human or animal life. Plants would love it!
Geophysios data shows CO2 having a 2 to 10 year residency...so it's not even likely to get to 1200 ppmv or near it from anthropogenic emissions.
Who discards raw data? Who would ever even dream of discarding the original data used to generate even mundane, inconsequential reports? Let alone important reports with international socioeconomic consequences. It would be preposterous for anyone to take serious that such data was dumped for anything other than an attempt to cover an incriminating truth. The CRU scientists should serve lengthy prison sentences. If they don't then the British legal system is equally corrupt.
The biggest scam ever perpetrated on the sovereignty of the United States of America...about to be handed over to the U.N. on a silver plater in Copenhagen by the one and only "Super bower Barack Obama".
Ekon Bamgbala
on November 29, 2009
at 11:04 PM
Well I'm very glad you don't teach physics to any of my kith and kin.
Sandra wrote:
"As a professional wildlife biologist for nearly 30 years, I have seen changes with my own eyes across many states. It ain't a hoax, folks."
My response:
Climate "changes" occur for a multitude of different reasons. Always have and always will.
Observing changes in the climate is in no way proof that man-made CO2 is the driver of those changes - or that the predicted increases in CO2 will cause the global catastrophe predicted by these now discredited scientists.
These creeps conspired to hide the leveling off of average global temperatures over the last 7 to 11 years, because CO2 has continued to increase without the predicted impact on temperature.
And yes there are many factors which COULD be temporarily blocking this warming, but the fact that this "lull" if that what it is, was not predicted points to the possibility that global warming theory itself could be missing so many unknown climate factors is to be wholly inaccurate.
For example, the sun is now experiencing a surprising and unpredicted solar minimum. Sunspots have been at record lows for almost the last 3 years. Its a 100 year record. Long absence of sunspots (caused by a weakening of solar geo-magnetic activity), is associated historically with global cooling.
What other little understood factors (such as decadal ocean currents), are inaccurately represented in the IPCCs much vaunted computer models?
Why should we spend trillions in taxes to prevent a "problem" which is clearly not well understood?
To the warmists - I give you this challenge :-
1) submit your work for public peer review . You have been funded massively by us , the public , and you are now demanding massive amounts of more money from us and , as such , you are required to submit to us - in the public domain :-
i) a copy of all raw data . You have refused to supply this - you have given the 'dog eat my homework' excuse . I think that the conclusion can only be that the raw data does not support your thesis .
ii) a copy of all your methodology . I strongly suspect that there has been a lot of fiddling of the data . You will have to prove that this is not the case . I don't think that you can .
2) prove :-
i) that this is not a money making exercise - show where the money , that you propose to spend , will flow and that it won't enrich anyone - ie. people will work 'for the good of mankind' - rather than for personal enrichment .
ii) that the expenditure of money will have the desired effect . Personally I don't think it will have any effect . I think it will be the same as CFC's - where there was a lot of money expended with no change to the size of the ozone hole .
I don't think you - the warmists - can prove any of your case . So 'Put Up or Shut Up' as the saying goes - prove your case in the public domain or withdraw your case .
The notion that these are just a couple of bad apples is laughable. First these are THE big shots in this field, second this fraud is world wide involving numerous complicite journals, universities, and governments.
To all of the global warming supporters (Global Cooling Deniers?).....if the truth about our climate is so bad, so catastrophic, and so inevitable then why do the MAIN scientists on you side have to lie???
Isn't the "truth" bad enough??
Of course the real truth is not catastrophic, or even that bad...thus the big climate lie had to be created. Global Warming is manmade, made that is in climate research labs by scientists using false data and rigged computer models.
In the 60s it was global cooling or the man will be buried under his own trash. In the 21st Century it's global warming. I think P.T. was partially right, "Suckers aren't born every minute." they are born every second... and our comrade president stokes the fires of global warming as it can offer him more power.
The melting of the ice would be absorbed by cavities of land mass, in far greater proportion than an over-flow would occur; simply because it is gradual, and underwater tables are vast.
I can make a graph...
Ok..... Show us the Emails. All of them. And if your right I hope your prepared to explain to the world how we are going to continue depending on oil. Deep down you know the disbelief in the earth shaking changes going on all around them by the arrival of mankind, challenges there world view and there existence.
I told you so
I am left with three things having read the latest fifty postings and skimmed many others:
The scandal perpetrated by the CRU was firstly a fraud committed by scientists, bringing them and the whole scientific community into disrepute; secondly,
notwithstanding the manipulated data, global warming is an observational fact though human behaviour is not necessarily contributing significantly to the phenomenon, and thirdly, human behaviour is polluting the planet to the detriment of ourselves and of the animal kingdom.
These three separate issues need to to be disentangled.
I suggest we avoid recrimination (reputations have already been irretrievably damaged), pull together reputable data (the contributors to the mass of data supposedly lost by the CRU surely must have had back-ups), and go to Copenhagen with a will to be honest about what the citizens of the world, poor, middle class, and wealthy alike, need to live healthily and peacefully.
Interesting headline in the Guardian this morning:
"Carbon trading could be worth twice that of oil in next decade"
Ah...nothing like a good scam to make lots and lots of lovely dosh. And no doubt Goldman Sachs, in the forefront of every scam, will again be among the principal beneficiaries.
Ken Lowe wrote:
"When will you numpteez realise how dangerous CO2 is?
It is lethal &when someone attaches one end of a hosepipe to there car exhaust and feeds the other threw the window it is not the lead killing them! it is the CO2."
Sorry Ken, but it seems you are the numpty. It's the carbon MONOXIDE (CO)in exhaust gases that kills you, not the dioxide. Carbon dioxide is not poisonous: carbon monoxide is deadly poisonous. If you are in an enclosed area with no air intake, carbon dioxide eventually suffocates you as your body converts oxygen and foodstuff into carbon dioxide and water: too little oxygen results in death. Carbon monoxide, on the other hand, chemically and extremely rapidly locks onto the haemoglobin in our blood, thereby preventing it from seizing oxygen molecules that we inhale into our lungs with each breath of air. Result: a very quick death.
Thank you for an excellent summary, and to the Telegraph for having the courage to publish the facts.
As someone who has undertaken research I am appalled by the manipulation of experimental data in order to follow what has always been only one of many theories.
And to find that the CRU apparently doesn't have the original data on which over 25yrs work is based but merely has "value-added" results is worthy of a Monty Python script.
These people have no place in a scientific community.
If you read the news in the major media you would have cause to believe that there is a scientific consensus on the topic of man made global warming?
The truth is very different.
Most of the media articles you will see refer to reports issued by the IPCC. The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change, a POLITICAL body appointed by the UN. Many of the 3,000 members of this panel are not scientists, but simply political appointees. The few real scientists on the panel have disputed the panel's findings but have been silenced by having their comments deleted from the reports.
Several of these scientists have asked to have their names removed from the IPCC report, but have had their requests denied. Several have actually sued the panel to have their names removed, but few have been successful.
The actual fact regarding consensus on this issue is that there are many more scientists who dispute the claims regarding global warming than there are who support them.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/162241/17_200_Scientists_Dispute_Global_Warming
So, a couple of thousand politically motivated 'scientists' (predominantly NOT qualified in climatology) make unproven claims. Yet, over 31,000 scientists who sign a petition (See below) debunking the scam are described as 'the minority?' How so?
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
One more "shocking revelation" for me is how little the 2500 scientists who are signatories to the AGW agenda must understand what they agreed to, if none of them could possibly have studied the data for themselves. How can U.S. Climate Czar Browner say she is "sticking with" these 2500 scientists when it's obvious they aren't really 2500 independent investigators as we are led to believe, but an amen chorus for a handful of idealogues?
Thousands have been saying for years that it was a scam. Those of us who made that statement have been called every name you can imagine. Now does the scam artist al gore have to return the phony prize and all the money he has conned from thousands of suckers. Climate change is a natural occurring evolution that man can neither cause or change. SUCKERS!
So the scientists that said Christianity is crap becuase it has no empirical data for its teachings and beliefs, are now telling you to just have faith in them and what they say, even though they have no empirical data for thier teachings and beliefs. hhhhhmmmmmm.........
There's so much garbage and misleading info on this from both sides that most people don't care any more.
I'd blame Bush for this, seems to work for the left in the U.S.
Thanks Mr. Booker for the best analysis of this WarmerScam so far. I can tell in the comments that you hit a nerve! The Warmers are reduced to petty name-calling and lame, easily refuted arguments:
1) Skeptics are "anti-science", "stupid", and "ideologues" if they don't believe human-produced CO2 doesn't accelerate global warming. (So -- how is it "anti-science" to demand sound, replicable science, uncorrupted by over-zealous activistists?)
2) "Bad behaviour by a couple of dolt-scientists does not invalidate the independent research of thousands of other scientists worldwide - all of whom continue to say the same thing." (However, these few "dolt-scientists" are the source of all the data that all the other scientists relied upon. Without it, most of the studies I've seen have no purpose and prove nothing.)
3) "The earth is still warming -- so how do you explain that absent AGW?" (It's been warming for over 10,000 years. Where I live was under an ice sheet a mile thick less than 21,000 years ago. If you want to argue that CO2 is accelerating natural warming, and that the acceleration will be net harmful, then SHOW ME THE DATA.)
Thank goodness for Brooker. And Hackers.
The weak attempts to marginalise these emails, try and take their own statements 'out of context' and outright misinform people through the western msn regarding the current Watergate scandal speaks for itself. Its plain Orwellian.
Fortunately, much of the world still manages to find real news coverage somewhere. And we know..
To Ekon Bamgbala and all of you evolution deniers; evolution has stood up to scrutiny for the last 150 years without being contradicted by each new biological discovery. In fact, each discovery in this field supports evolution as the truth especially the science of DNA. Now it should be a relatively simple matter to work towards the truth about MMCC/MMGW as long as the data isn't being manipulated by charlatans.
I try not to rubbish people's beliefs but the gloves are going to come off if you keep rubbishing mine. And again to Ekon Bamgbala, if I am a fool, what does that make you? You can't spell 'violate' and what the hell does the law of thermodynamics have to do with evolution? Absolutely nothing! It is also patently obvious that you have no understanding about the theory of evolution. No-one has ever said that we evolved from monkeys let a lone dogs. And if you are a creationist (as it seems you are) how dare you and your mob even think about contemplating the mind of God. Who's to say that God didn't create life on earth via evolution in the first place? You see, if God does in fact exist, then it stands to reason that any machinations of a divine being would be far beyond the understanding of modern people let alone the moronic peasants that have perpetuated the bible and its fairytales.
"Those who continue to try to find a conspiracy or hoax in the many lines of evidence that indicate climate change is real and imminently devastating will have a very large guilt to bear. As a professional wildlife biologist for nearly 30 years, I have seen changes with my own eyes across many states. It ain't a hoax, folks." - Sandra
Sandra,
I've got news for you. You're right! Climate does change. It has been since the beginning. It ain't gonna stop, either. The one caveat to that enlightening thought is that man is like a zit on the face of the earth...we might affect some things locally, but we have virtually no impact on global conditions, regardless of what a bunch of too-big-for-their-britches climatologists say. This whole issue is about job security...follow the money, so to speak. Even scientists are not above "padding" their retirement funds.
Good news, now I can continue polluting without the guilt
The greatest sci-fy scam since the Piltown man
Again, we find the truth is the biggest lie of all. Shame on all these hacks and their leader and spokesman, the buffoon, Al Gore
Again, we find the truth is the biggest lie of all. Shame on all these hacks and their leader and spokesman, the buffoon, Al Gore
"What I'd like to see is even one line of data in reference to any evidence that a denier can muster which in any respect whatsoever can disprove Anthropogenic Global Warming theory."
You miss the point.
Because of the need to cook the data, there is absolutely no objective reason to believe the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory is nothing more than a child's cartoon of the universe. Without an objective benchmark, you have nothing to prove that the data used to prove such theories holds up to review (other than the so-called scientists used to cook the figures). Until this "theory" is proved by a truly objective look at the facts, your theory is based on melting ice (pun intended).
@ Saundra...climate change is real and imminently devastating will have a very large guilt to bear. As a professional wildlife biologist for nearly 30 years,
Sandra
on November 29, 2009...
No one here is denying that the earth is always in a state of flux... you are styating that you have observed changes in your 30 years of experience and YOU KNOW these are BAD... last I heard the earth is 4-5 BILLION years old and has gone through many changes in that time...much hotter than now and much colder as well... Also, you can easily verify that CO2 is beneficial to plant life... growers increase the ppm levels to 5X those naturally occurring.... more food would be better for more people and wildlife!
Admit that the earth (or a space rock) is going to do as they please.
Nobody believes a liar, even when they tell the truth. Warmists were indisputably caught lying, big time. It's over, chaps. The Nobel prize is devalued even further, if that's even possible. Match point, game over.
When will you numpteez realise how dangerous CO2 is?
It is lethal &when someone attaches one end of a hosepipe to there car exhaust and feeds the other threw the window it is not the lead killing them! it is the CO2.
And you want to put this stuff in the community!
You need to be forced to learn.
Jerrold McQueen
on November 29, 2009
at 10:49 PM
Hey goose, do ya know the difference between CO2 and CO ????
"..scientists are advised to delete ... data, which, when this is ... a criminal offence"
Does this mean an official investigation will be opened? Will the requester be able to instigate this? Does this advise constitute "conspiracy"?
No new science was uncovered in the emails. What WAS uncovered was some scientists displaying overly-political responses to absurdly political attacks.
I find the deniers to have an odd relationship with Michael Mann. They are hell-bent on disproving his work, EVEN THOUGH IT DOESN'T MATTER MUCH. Even if you threw out that data entirely, all that would change is that the error bars on the left side of the "hockey stick" graph would grow a bit larger. This would, in turn, imply that there is a somewhat greater chance (though still less than 50%) that it was hotter around a thousand years ago.
But SO WHAT? How does that change ANYTHING about the future? "Natural variation" isn't magic or voodoo. If it was hotter a thousand years ago (or two thousand, or five thousand) that means something in the physical world changed to cause this. If such a thing was the cause of the current observed changes, what is it? Why can't the deniers find it, despite their enormous efforts to find it? Every alternative explanation to carbon dioxide has been shot down, repeatedly.
When water freeezes it expands. It then has more volume but less density. That is why icebergs (and ice cubes) float. When ice melts, it shrinks. So the net increase in sea level when icebergs melt is nil. The problem is that vast amounts of the ice in the Antarctic is not floating in the sea. It is sitting on rock, a lot of it well above sea level. If that ice melts, the meltwater will flow into the sea as a net addition, raising sea levels.
CLIMATE CHANGE:
The writer is just plain "dead wrong" in his assertions that there is NO "global warming" occurring.
In the U.S.' Pacific NW, the EMPIRICAL evidence is scientifically verifiable.
The "snowpack" of the Cascade Mountain Range of the NW has at or below normal snows while each year, the "Spring" warming rains have occurred earlier and earlier with warmer and warmer temperatures that are melting a snowpack that USED to remain throughout the year. That snowpack provided needed water downstream for drinking and irrigation.
Today, the glacier on Mt. Hood has continued to recede. The same is true of other Cascade Mountain glaciers that are receding.
The ONLY reason for such receding is "WARMING!"
Those who are stating that there is no "global warming" are those in the carbon dioxide emitting corporations or are on the "take" from those corporations.
As one who grew up in the coal fields on the east coast, EVERY person there KNOWS the damage done by "acid rain," by pneumoconiosis (black lung); of the orange death streams from mine acid run-off that kills every living thing in those streams; the hydrogen sulfide in the air from coal burning coke ovens, being breathed by a life shortened population; the control by those polluting corporations in those states and the destruction of the environments there. All that, and the "writer" dares to say that there is no such thing as "global warming," or danger to the environment?
Who does he think he is kidding?
There is a very REAL way to stop all coal burning and other cancer causing, global warming caused effects, and that is to implement CONSERVATIONIST approaches such as wind, solar, wave, water, and newly found alternative sources of energy that do NOT damage the Earth or its inhabitants.
The ONLY reason that the writer and the opponents to the argument about "global warming" is that to stop the use of those carbon dioxide products is to cause transnational corporations to LOSE their profits made from those severe health damaging products such as coal, oil, gas, et al.
In the Pacific NW, there are now "dead zones" in the ocean that have killed every living thing within them. There are algae blooms that have never been in the NW before but are now deadly frequent to every living thing, thanks to a higher rate of CO2 and warmer temperatures.
The Pine Beetles that are literally killing the forests in the Rocky Mountains and the Cascades, were usually held "in check" from FREEZING temperatures. The weather is no longer "freezing" in long enough terms, such that the Pine Beetles are surviving and are killing America's forests, the SAME forests that are supposed to consume and hold CO2 from the atmosphere.
Does the writer understand his contribution to the demise of this environment?
The writer is NOT being honest. The Empirical evidence is clearly demonstrated by the obvious in the Cascade Mountain Range, in the Rocky Mountains, in the melting glaciers, and in the Pacific Ocean of the NW.
Tell the writer to tell HIS grandchildren how he LIED in his reports to protect the corruptors of the environment for profit at the expense of the writer's own family members. Was it worth it to the writer to lie in the column about this?
It is up to us while we are here on the planet for a short time, to protect it. It is really the only worthy legacy to leave the next generations.
So why keep including pics of water vapour escaping from cooling towers, when you talk about CO2 emissions?
Have you every seen CO2? No? Oh yes, it's a colourless gas, isn't it?
The word is "pathetic".
It's all been one huge billowing fraud.
Hello England, this is the United States calling! What are we, the the last generation of Anglo-Saxons; feminized, deracinated, and passively apologetic for our World Building Civilizations? Time is just about up. Unless we reclaim the pride of the Anglo-Saxon Race, its ideals, its Protestant Religion, its Liberty-based government, its language all will be lost. We, the conquerors of Hitler, now melt in fear of leftist opinion! No longer shall we allow ourselves to be quelled by claims of racism or thisism thatism. How on the world have we gone from Churchill Nelson Patten Washington Cromwell John Smith to our generation of pusillanimous PC Dhimmis or hyper"macho" beer swilling football thugs? The LORD raised up the Protestant Standard of Elizabeth 1, and now we have Eliz.#2 reigning over apostasy.
CRU has just admitted that all emprical temperature data has been "dumped" and cannot be verified.
The credibility of Jones, et al has just been, likewise, "dumped".
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
I found the problem. We have idiots like Zebb teaching children physics. A physics teacher who, by his own admission, lacks an understanding of elementary physics. I live in a place called Floyds Knobs. It's a small city about 4 miles north of Louisville, KY USA. It's called Floyds Knobs because very large hills(Knobs) were left by retreating glaciers that extended down to Southern Indiana, they retreated and the debris left formed the Knobs. Please explain to me the warming that caused those massive glaciers to retreat.
Every single computer requires about 1.8 tonnes of chemicals, fossil fuels and water for its manufacture. And once in use, it emits about 0.1 tonne of carbon dioxide in a year.
According to a research, computers generate an estimated 35 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. The emissions by computers account for 2 per cent of world’s total carbon dioxide emissions, almost equal to that contributed by aviation.
from ecofriend, save the planet turn off your computers
Al where can i get a refund for the inconvenient truth?
From my Common Sense and Experience over the years..I learned that scientists usually unveiled "Findings" in PUBLIC..spoke at Open Conferences and DARED folks to Rebut their findings. Watching the Global Warming Crap evolve over the years I often wondered..why it was so CLOSED.. ..I have friends who are scientists and they told me of conferences THEY attended ..and they always were rushing to prove, improve or disavow the findings...Open collaboration was the JOB....These scientists who declared m their "Findings" CLOSED..no Questions Allowed...should have raised the curiousity of MANY others..but given the sorry state of education and ethics..LOOK AT WHAT HAS HAPPENED..THE LOSS OF BUSINESS, TAXES INCREASED OR INVENTED..LIVES RUINED...FOR WHAT..AL GORE AND THE GREENIES..LINING THEIR POCKETS..LIVING HIGH AND THE REST OF US PAYING FOR IT.
Word to the wise....all parents should work VERY hard to improve education..go back to the old style where a healthy dose of common sense is Taught..where children are TOLD to DOUBT, RESEARCH ..Education today is taught in such a manner that the Teacher Doesn't allow Questions..their facts are the only facts and it causes LAZY Minds..and Here we are..a World full of Followers and No Leaders..
Since I have been excluded from the Will Heaven Blog I have to make my response here:
I assume that since Heaven has been brought to the Telegraph blogs then other deities would also be allowed access?
However Will seems to be alone.
Through roughly 300 posts by mostly, obviously intelligent, educated people of whom 99% have ridiculed his statements, Will does not for one second think that maybe he got it wrong.
Intelligent people dont work that way (unless you pay them). If you have a brain and you find that pretty well every other intelligent person you speak to says "sorry mate but you got that wrong" then you start to question yourself.
If you dont question yourself then you are either an idiot or a paid idiot.
Since I have been excluded from the Will Heaven blog I have to make my response here:
I assume that since Heaven has been brought to the Telegraph blogs then other deities would also be allowed access?
However Will seems to be alone.
Through roughly 300 posts by mostly, obviously intelligent, educated people of whom 99% have ridiculed his statements, Will does not for one second think that maybe he got it wrong.
Intelligent people dont work that way (unless you pay them). If you have a brain and you find that pretty well every other intelligent person you speak to says "sorry mate but you got that wrong" then you start to question yourself.
If you dont question yourself then you are either an idiot or a paid idiot.
If you have information about the scientific fraud put forth by Michael Mann of the Pennsylvania State University, contact Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett; Phone 717.787.3391 or mail
Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General
16th Floor, Strawberry Square
Harrisburg, PA 17120
or on the web:
http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/theoffice.aspx?id=71#
The Attorney General of Pennsylvania has standing to prosecute criminal fraud which in this case has been funded by our state's taxpayers.
Ekon...Apparently your glass is only half fun.
And since you don't seem the brightest, left me state that by glass I was actually referring to your brain.
To the Ice overflow cup guy...
It's not the ice that's already floating in the water that's the problem. It's the miles of ice sheets on the land (Greenland and Antarctica) that are the problem.
The last ice age had so much ice cover over North America (mostly all of Canada) that the seas were 400 feet lower then today. When all of the ice melts today, we will only see a 40 foot rise, but that is still enough to flood every major city on the coast.
"If it wasn't for the green movement we would have had a nuclear war by now.
FACT.
You should be grateful to us. We have your best interests at heart but do we ever get any thanks from you morons?"
Yes, the Soviets wouldn't dare launch their ICBM's as long as they knew the "Rainbow Warrior" was out there patrolling the high seas.
Putting that aside, are you saying that since you Greenies have done so many good things we should just ignore the fact that we've been lied to and extorted to the tune of several Billion dollars, with more to come? We should all just shut up and say thanks, thanks for saving us from your delusions. Now that your entire movement has been discredited, I think I'll go buy some Oil futures. Have a nice day.
Ekon Bamgbala
If the ice floats in the glass, then as it melts it won't result in water overflowing the glass. However, if you put a cylindrical piece of solid ice of length 12 inches in a four inch glass, fill the glass to the brim, and let all the ice melt fall into the glass, water will overflow the glass. But in that case, the ice wasn't "floating", it was partly supported by the bottom of glass. Ice that floats on sea water is like floating ice in a glass. Its melting won't raise the level of the sea. Ice that is supported by land (glaciers, the approximately mile-deep ice on Antarctica, etc.) if melted and allowed to flow into the oceans will raise the level of the sea. At least that's the way I see it.
thank god the truth is getting out.i find it very odd that those screaming the most about gw are those who are positioned to gain the most. another inconvient truth 1. polar bear populations are increasing 2. the shorelines in florida are increasing in size. i say we try these charlatans and send them to the artic,have them fill the ozone hole with their own co2. but of course they are nobel prize winners. such a pompous group.
It took 40 years for paleontologists to expose Charles Dawson's Piltdown Man as a hoax. With the internet, maybe it will take only 20 years to expose Hansen, Jones, IPCC, et al, for the charlatans they are.
With hundreds of millions of dollars in grants, they should be prosecuted for fraud and possibly treason.
Guys,
The Volume of water INCREASES with cooling. (simple experiment - fill the bottle to the top, 'put a cork in it' :) & put in the freezer, see what happens).
And of course - ICE volume is reduced by heating (back to water).
The experiment 'professor' above suggest is flawed for very simple reason - there is a little bit of ice, always, above the water level (specific weight - lighter than water) - melting of that portion causes 'overflow'... (it was 'extra' to begin with :)
BTW - 'teach', careful with the kids - they might actually want to learn.
But the whole argument about 'melting' (and expected big flood) is flawed because it's a very complex calculation and requires exact data (how much ice, ratio to water, how much above, how much below, delta between (in the context of 'shrinking' volume of Ice), etc.
I do not think we have the complete earth surface (water, ice), including the seabed mapped - so data (and conclusions) is a 'best guess' or a 'best fitting guess'.
Joke.
the glaciers are almost gone....the polar ice sheets keep losing far more than these ice systems regenerate from snowfall..... global data gathering is hardly perfect but conclusive, carbon emissions are causing more ice to melt and average world temperature to rise....and such pollution also causes solar dimming, less light gets through causing plants to grow less where the carbon and other particulates block sunlight in less than clear skies....the only frauds are those who refuse to abate pollution, profiteers and fools who also believe virgin Mary birthed and alleged baby god
In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenized) data.”
The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.
going back to the glass full of water and ice. when the ice melts the glass does not run over. I have however filled a container with water and stuff to the top and sealed it. When frozen the container is broken from the expanding water to ice.
does this mean that when ice is unfrozen, there is less water?
Everyone knew the cap and trade scam was a fraud. You cannot make a turd go away by taxing it and trading the turd to someone else. Poor Al Gore, a lifetime setting up the super scam to have a computer hacker show him his dishonesty
Doesn't this prove once again:
Rush is right?
Just sayin, he called this BS a long long time ago, and it was all common sense.
There are a lot of tree hugger wannabees and hopeless followers out there that still will not believe. I am so tired of their B.S....
Nice to see that most of you Brits get it. Nobody anywhere likes to be lied to, have our children scared, and be taxed for ludicrous ideas. On behalf of America I would like to apologize to our Mother land for Al Gore, NASA, and all the Marxist Democrats that we have given you. Including the ultimate one, BO.
If we all scream loud enough they can't ignore us. The squeaking wheel gets the grease, as we like to say. Something the Neo-Comms have known for too long.
Now it's our turn to start "Acting Up"
My suggestion: Flood the BBC with emails and phone calls and ask them Who's side are you on. The Politicians or the People. You take care of your end and I will, with the help of my fellow BIAs, go after CBS, NBC, and ABC here in America where we have the same cover-up of the story(except for Fox News)
Together we can take back this world from the Neo-Comms
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11582 carries the first analysis of CRU data. The ariticle shows how the data was cooked. The initial analysis indicates that global warming does not exist in the 20th century. It explains how the data was manipulated.
You have heard politicians say to "Never let a good crisis go to waste".(Hillary). They create a crisis in order to get laws passed that they couldn't get otherwise. They scare people into supporting the phony cause. And what is their phony cause? Money. Money from carbon credits and taxes to supposedly counter the effects of man made polution. Big money.
I've noticed that several of the Global warming supporters posting here seem quite disturbed about the photo accompanying this article.
Who cares whether it's water vapor or CO2? As usual, you guys are missing the bigger points:
Global Warming is a scam. The chief "scientific" proponents have been caught altering the data to support their case. They've been unethical. They've been doing it for years. They ruthlessly stifle honest discussion on the issue.
"So what?" you ask?
OK.
Pretend some Conservatives did that for some conservative cause. AH! Now you can see how naughty they've been! It's time to recognize true evil. Stop making excuses. You guys have been duped many times. Time to move forward.
Will this revelation penetrate the noggin? Are any doubts starting to form? May we have the audacity of hope?
I think it is true that when the USSR collapsed all those socialists/communists went into the environmental movement. Control of the Earth's resources is their aim. They call themselves Progressives.
Get this...
now all the original data has been dumped.
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
This just in...
Algore was last seen leaving the Climategate Tavern in Nashville, TN, crying and drunk, with a strange item hanging out of his bum...witnesses thought it looked like a ...a hockey stick? Ouch!
There is a God. Thank you hacker (whoever you are) for uncovering Climategate. I propose that the hacker be awarded the Nobel Prize for possibly saving freedom around the globe.
Wow! some one just posted on here that the north pole will be gone next year! wow!!! Believing that man can alter the macro enviroment is akin to the biblical story of babel.
Reading a lot of the contributions from the warmists an old saying comes to mind : "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing - it's only when you have a lot of knowledge that you know how little you know !"
Sandra,
If I take all your observations to accurate, what proof do you have the the 5% human contribution to the 3.73% CO2 levels is causing the warmth?
Please give us your evidence on human's .0019 parts per million causes drastic warming? While proving its not the sun's output or changing ocean currents.
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it the IPCC model that said the the CO2 would cause a larger volume of clouds in the high atomsphere causing global warming? Any of this evidence of the increased cloud coverage? probably not.
Sandra, people like you keep parading out evidence of warming, ie. Polar bear habitat changing, etc, but NEVER post the evidence between CO2 and change. Sorry to say, but from your side of the argument, all I ever hear is assumption and never any tangible proof.
If you can display some real evidence linking CO2 to this so called warming, I will listen with an open mind.
"....As a professional wildlife biologist for nearly 30 years, I have seen changes with my own eyes across many states. It ain't a hoax, folks."
Sandra
on November 29, 2009
at 11:37 PM
This comment shows the greater problem. So called "professionals" are so wrapped up in their religion that the true is relegated to the trash can. Somewhat like CRU did with the raw data. It didn't fit their world view. One certainly wouldn't want to foul up their opinion with facts.
This is really just one area, one more example of the biased, intellectually dishonest tunnel-vision that has pervaded much of academia as they clutch onto myriad unproven theories, discarding and hiding all evidence that even hints at being contrary to their myopic views. True science considers all possibilities and even when one theory appears to dominate it is always viewed with a healthy scepticism. Control freaks want to be right all the time at all cost.
Burney Maddoff has NOTHING on this bunch of SCAM artists!
Global warming is about to join the weather hoaxes of the late 20th century, the new ice age and acid rain on the ash heap if history or in my local land fill. It will take a bit but it will happen.
Dear Sandra,
so am I and so have I - for fifty years and in five different continents, albeit on an amateur basis. You Are Wrong. The changes are part of a natural cycle - rise, evolve, survive or become extinct. Please read your Darwin, unless you are a Creationist and beyond rational argument.
Last week I heard Al Gore claim that the earth's core was millions of degrees in temperature. Al Gore: Minister of disinformation.
Dear Kylr8
Quoting you:
"Bad behaviour by a couple of dolt-scientists does not invalidate the independent research of thousands of other scientists worldwide - all of whom continue to say the same thing."
Can you list them please?
Remember that many of the UN-IPCC paricipants have become sceptics themelves. e.g.
Dr Arnold Kling,
Prof James P Koermer,
Prof Richard Lindzen,
Dr Vincent Gray.
Dr Hans H J Labohm,
Dr Richard Courtney,
Dr Kiminori Itoh,
Dr Yuri Izrael (former UN IPCC Vice Chairman),
Dr Steven M Japar,
Dr Philip Lloyd,
Dr Patrick Michaels,
Prof Ross McKitrick
Dipl.Ing Peter Dietze
Prof John Christy
Prof Robert E Davis
Just ask, I have many more IPCC participant dissenters from the mock consensus.
And hundreds more professors, doctorates and Masters degree qualified climatologists, physicists, meteorologists, geologists, geophysicists, astropheric scientists, physical chemists, mathematical modellers, earth scientists, statisticians ......some strange consensus!!!
State Scientific Institute anyone? :)
Maybe They feel it is in the best interest to manipulate the data for the benefit of the people not because they are worried about losing government funds - but because we need to be guilted more... don't say good bye to cap and tax yet...
Subsequent to my post of 0640hrs this morning, it is interesting to read some of the other contributions.
Most of these are rational and sensible, some of ignorance
and some bordering on frightening insanity.
I think we all should thank Dr Samuel D'Arcangelis for his valuable contribution and by the same token condemn the post by "re9luv9ution" as introducing the same "mouth frothing" lunacy as the wilder elements of the "Believers" As for prime numpty (to use his words) Mr Jerrold McQueen, perhaps somebody should explain to him that CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) will merely asphixiate him by Oxygen deprivation, if he tries to commit suicide by car exhaust fumes. We are not trees or cabbages that breathe CO2, but like all animals, breathe O2 (Oxygen). The compound that will kill him is CO (Carbon Monoxide) - a lethal poison causing blood de-oxygenation and multiple organ failure. CO will always try to capture another Oxygen molecule to turn itself into CO2.
Education time over!
However, this is a digression from my main point. Judging from the level of (rational) outrage following the CRU/IPCC farce and the crashing silence of the Establishment (i.e. HM's Government, Opposition, main broadsheets, bSkyb, and [BBC British Broadcasting for Cretins?]suggests a huge dilemma for those that disagree with the conventional "wisdom" that global climate change is effected by the activities of the Homo Sapiens Sapiens (a mis-nomer if ever there was one!)
Unlike the "Believers" (URC, IPCC, Al Gore et al)there is no central point, or focus group, to counter their argument. The Copenhagen carnival will carry on as if nothing had happened.
It would appear that a sane and rational counter argument is needed with the credibility of an organised body, with suitably qualified authorities, to direct it. This is obviously lacking, or it's so low profile that I'm unaware of it.
Nigel Lawson has recently launched his website providing a demand for a more open discussion and greater transparency, but is this enough to stop the "Socialist Worker/rent a mob, dole inhabiting, worried housewife, professional cause seeking fraternity" who have now adopted global climate change as a religion? Witness the lunacy of our legal system last week, in agreeing that it is!
Most importantly, what is being witnessed is yet another assault on the democratic process and loss of freedom of speech. If you are not a "Believer" therefore you are apostostate.
If there is a credible organisation out there that can provide a rallying point, please, please, let me know of your existence, as I would be more than willing to join and support it to my utmost.
Although I despise many of the rantings of the BNP, as a retired Royal Marines officer, I would pay the ultimate sacrifice for their right to state their views - as did my forebears in two world wars.
The loss of the democratic process, the secrecy and perfidy of URC in its alteration and hiding of primary data, is most worrying. But, more worrying still is the silence of the Establishmnet.
There's no global warming
Take this as a warning
About liars, crooks, and frauds
They just want our money
For research that's 'funny'
Hackers, you have our applause
How can you global warming hysterics believe ANY of the data, knowing that there was massive fraud? You can't credibly talk about data or consensus or anything at this point. The whole thing has been blown up in your faces. You have been exposed as hysterical cultists who have FAITH, not science motivating you. Even now, with overwhelming evidence showing fraud you still try and defend fraudulent data. It's truly unbelievable.
Ekon Bamgbala,
"Just to explain how stupid you deniers are try this experiment.
Put some water in a glass with a piece of ice making sure the glass is filled to the brim.
Watch when the ice melts and the water flows over the edge of the glass.
This will tell you what is going to happen when the artic ice melts.
There will be absolute carnage.
I teach physcis to a level so you can all just shut it."
You are either a liar or an imbecile. Anyone who ever drank a glass of water with ice in it knows that doesn't happen. Ice expands when freezing, it takes up less space as a liquid. You are a total idiot.
The BBC pension-fund seems to be exposed on carbon trading schemes...would that explain the coyness on this massive story?
@Ekon,
Pity your students, if you are indeed a physics teacher.
You say to fill a glass to the brim with water and ice, and watch it overflow when the ice melts.
Water is a polar molecule which expands when it goes from a liquid to a solid. This is why water will crack paved surfaces or rock if allowed to freeze in crevices. I learned this in the third grade. Maybe I should take over your classes....
Climategate doesn't resonate with the young, I like 'WarmScam', from the 'Warmingists'.
I'm not all that much on scientific theory I have to admit. I've just been observing the foot print of Antarctica in Google Earth for a few years and also the length of the actual winter months up in the arctic circle. And how things are changing where I live.
What do I need all those numbers for anyway? All I need to do is look, observe, and I can see it happening.
(I've noticed that most of your commenters are behind you, so not sure this will show up.)
Hey, you idiots. Forget the numbers and get off your butts. Just go look.
What a wonderful thing to know most of you have always been wise to the game....
I had previously believed just about every brit was part of the leftist zombie religion known as climate change, formerly known as global warming...
Now we still have work to do on the earth worshipers here in the stated...
The question is, if AGW is not a big problem and with stable or falling temperatures over the last 10 years it would certainly seem that way, why are certain governments and bodies investing so much political capital in it. Those I know within the global warming industry have admitted to me that they are unable to square what they know with the excessive and alarmist claims made by some of the warmists, including British politicians such as Gordon Brown.
When Schuman, Monnet, Reuter et al set about putting their great plan together for the United States of Europe after World War II, they knew they must trick and inveigle the independent peoples of Europe, slowly into giving up their independence. They started with a modest proposal, the European Coal and Steel Community as a supranational authority to remove excessive supply in order to try to regulate the economic swings in those industries. To do this an international secretariat was created and once this bureaucracy was in position, it was a relatively easy trick to extend this to agriculture and fisheries. Now, years later, the member states of the EU have given up almost all pretence of democracy and their electorates certainly have as the Brussels bureaucracy pushes its unelected governing fingers into every nook and cranny of daily life.
Climate Change is sufficiently not understood by the people and is remote. It is easy to frighten them and to make the point "Look here, no one country can deal with this so we must accept international supervision before the planet is destroyed." Once the supranational authority has been established to deal with climate change, it will be a relatively easy matter to extend this to fisheries and so on.
After the last world war there was a group of people who believed fervently in world government. Essentially they had given up on the idea of free, independent democratic nation states and in the mid 1970s I met one, an elderly British civil servant, who retained a fervent belief in the concept of a world government. There are many people and groups who still cleave to that faith but pragmatists have always believed that without a conflict or event capable of posing a serious threat to the planet, such a transfer of power would be impossible!
This might help to explain why the AGW argument has managed to gain so much traction and why it is so strongly supported by, amongst others, the BBC, which in its single minded support for the EU, in opposition to its strict statutory requirements for balance, it is once again rejecting democratic nation states in favour of supranational bureaucratic government. The British Foreign Office would seem to be another supporter, prepared to use its influence to force the BBC to sack one of its most popular and respected presenters, purely because it felt his eurosceptic views posed a threat to the FO’s cherished plan to subsume British independence into the Brussels supranational authority.
Anthropogenic Climate Change is a Trojan Horse, designed to set up a world governing secretariat.
A question comes to mind. Have these "scientists" been paid off by someone or somebody to fabricate the lie that global warming is manmade and can be reversed????
san quintin(I don't rely on 'authority' as I am one.)
My background is in feedback theory, and (as you might have seen from an earlier comment ) I find the suggestion of temperature amplification by positive feedback to be exceedingly doubtful.
(For example, the claimed multiplier of 2x or 3x in the quantification of climate sensitivity.)
Two examples.
With regard to claimed water vapour feedback - is there anything you can refer me to in the scholarly literature which shows that water vapour response to CO2 concentration behaves an "active system". (As you will be well aware, amplification is not possible in a passive system.)
With regard to the proposed ice albedo feedback.
As ice cover retreats poleward, the angle of incidence of incoming solar radiation reduces. At the polar extremes, incoming solar has a maximum angle of 23.5 degrees (for one day in the year), and fully six months with no incoming solar radiation whatsoever.
I do not believe that there is a credible argument for ice albedo feedback all the way up to the polar extremes. It is a system where I would expect to see a saturating effect and no further change of ice cover. On that basis, the only question is what angle to expect saturation to occur.
There may be variations in ice cover, but I would not expect that to be due to ice albedo positive feedback - for any general climatic condition (eg, glacial or inter glacial) ice cover would always be subject to minor variations about the saturated equilibrium.
Further, if ice albedo positive feedback were a genuine phenomenon (and I would stress that I don't think it is) it strikes me that the "loop gain" would be greatest if the ice is advancing. To run the logic: an increase in ice cover, an increasing angle of incedence; more cooling; further increase in ice cover. But we don't see that in the present ice caps, so it is another line of reasoning which indicates to me that there is no such ice albedo positive feedback.
I would be grateful for your views on this thread.
(Please don't refer me to Real Climate as I am unlikely to pay attention to the views of the Hockey Team right now.)
Thank you, in anticipation.
Professor Jones, one of the East Anglian "Climate scientists" added: "Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate Data Centre in the United States, among others. Even if you were to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results. The facts speak for themselves; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them."
--------------------------
Let's think about this shall we. A university professor who admits that the climate data was manipulated, with the original data destroyed, has said that these two other sources happen to agree with our manipulated and massaged data.
The fact that the Professor claims that the "independent" sources data correlates well with the manipulated data suggests serious questions about the "independent sources".
The Criminal Phonies wanting reductions in CO2 don't seem the least concerned about the CHEMTRAIL SPRAY PLANES spraying Barium Stearate, Aluminum Oxide, Viruses, and Dessicated Blood Cells,,,This, along with FrankenFOODS, Mandatory Lethal VACCINES, and enforced reductions in CO2 which will require LESS Agriculture (FAMINE), etc. is part of a BROAD PROGRAM of GLOBAL DEPOPULATION.
What no one ever seems to ask is, what if this bunch of climate scientists had been given as much funding and power back in the 70s when it was thought that a new Ice Age was upon us?
Assuming that they possessed the same blinkered zealotry, the logical answer is that they would have taken similar steps to force governments worldwide to heat up the earth before we all froze over.
And then where would we be?
Time for you to read the Manifesto written by the Fellow PHD from Harvard to see what they are all about " 1. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster
for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of
those of us who live in "advanced" countries, but they have
destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected
human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological
suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have
inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued
development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly
subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage
on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social
disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased
physical suffering even in "advanced" countries.
and On and ON. They are merely doing what Ted said they should do.
All this global warming, climate change is all crisis crap designed to part us from our hard earned money. Follow the money...Al Bore, George Soryass and Mickey Gorbachev. This is the new face of the communist party
"Ekon Bamgbala,
"Just to explain how stupid you deniers are try this experiment.
Put some water in a glass with a piece of ice making sure the glass is filled to the brim.
Watch when the ice melts and the water flows over the edge of the glass.
This will tell you what is going to happen when the artic ice melts.
There will be absolute carnage.
I teach physcis to a level so you can all just shut it."
Uh sir, I am not going to denigrate you and call you a he other posters have. Quite frankly, you are too pathetic to be derided. You sir, need some serious mental health help.
I pity you.
The British press is much braver than the American mainline (leftist) press in reporting and discussing Climategate. Why? Only Fox News and conservative talk radio have said anything. This follows the shameful pattern of the Van Jones and ACORN stories. The mainstream press, TV, and radio listeners are shrinking rapidly, while Fox News and conservative radio are greatly growing. The mainstream press can't stop the truth from coming out. Why do they try? I guess they are looking for Obama brownie points,
A very good article Mr Booker. Two points:
1. To answer some of the comments posted here by several alarmists, a considerable number of people in the "denier" camp are scientists who have been aware of the mock science being promoted by people like Mann, Jones, etc but have been unable to prove it (until now).
2. A quote from President Eisenhower in 1961 seems quite relevant here "Yet in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite".
First off, apparently the Debate is NOT over or there wouldn't be a need to hide anything. So, when the data is questioned and nees to be shown, "uh... the dog ate my data, but, trust me.....". Yeah, right.
That dog ate crap didn't work in Elementary school and it doesn't work now.
Well, as far as I'm concerned the debate IS over on one thing. These so called "Scientists" need to be in PRISON!
This GW has always felt wrong. And it WAS!
Time to start over, only THIS TIME lets have BOTH sides monitor the work! Have BOTH sides determine wher to put the sensors. Not next to active Volcanoes. Not next to Airport runways, but in open environments where the climate is consistent.
That won't happen. Why? Because the data won't add up for the Tin Foil Hat wearing Chicken Littles. That's why!
No Global Warming Global Government! It's Communism, at the very least!
Anyone with a modicum of common sense and a small amount of scientific education, knows that man-made global warming is a hoax without looking at any data. Those of us with engineering degrees who have read even a smidgen of the released emails, understand exactly what these so-called scientists were doing and it has nothing to do with science or engineering. This type of fitting the data to the desired conclusion would never be tolerated by integrated circuit manufacturers because it would exposed quickly and financially. Alas, Al Gore is making millions if not billions off this hoax and he should be put in jail for a hoax he surely must know is pure snake oil. I want to know Mr. Al Gore, how many campfires it took man to melt the glacier that used to cover the hill where my home now sits? Geologists have told us that a glacier covered the area where I live thousands of years ago--according to man-made climate change theory, the camp fires of the Native Americans melted these glaciers. THINK!
The British press is much braver than the American mainline (leftist) press in reporting and discussing Climategate. Why? Only Fox News and conservative talk radio have said anything. This follows the shameful pattern of the Van Jones and ACORN stories. The mainstream press, TV, and radio listeners are shrinking rapidly, while Fox News and conservative radio are greatly growing. The mainstream press can't stop the truth from coming out. Why do they try? I guess they are looking for Obama brownie points,
Busted! The jury is no longer
out on this issue. The Democrat's liberal, progressive
agenda to find new ways to control us... and at the same time they tax us to death,
has been exposed as a complete
lie and scam of colossal
proportions since day one.
I hope the "scientists"
that knowingly perpetrated
this fraud are drummed out
of their professions, and
prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The next career move for these
inquiring minds should
involve working for an organization that asks the all important question....would
you like fries with that order?
Gore is such a geek. I love the fact that he has egg on his face. The Nobel prize committee came up with another loser.
Great article. Only a little mistake: Eduardo Zorita is from Madrid, Spain, and works in Germany
PFWAG has done us a great service by identifying the real cause of global warming. What more proof do we need than seeing Tiger Woods crash into a fire hydrant and his wife smashing his car window with a golf club?
It seems as sound an explanation as all that CO2 crap!
"Unless we find other sorts of power generation than carbon forms of power generation we will be at war over resources all the time. And in the current world it is considered rude to go to war over resources however necessary they are."
How many times have you posted this twaddle on blogs over the last few days? It's ends-justify-means rubbish demonstrating your low standards of personal integrity and your complete contempt for the scientific process.
==============================
"Global Warming" is the Bernie Madoff environmental scam
==============================
@ Ekon
If your comment is true, " I teach Physics..." then I feel sorry for your students. If you have any amount of ice in a glass and fill it to the rim with water, it will not overflow. The ice has a different density than water but the same amount of volume. The water melts and displaces the same amount of volume that the ice did.
Don't open your mouth, everyone who had to read it is now dumber because of you.
You need to go back to 6TH grade science class.
Ekon Bamgbala,
"Just to explain how stupid you deniers are try this experiment.
Put some water in a glass with a piece of ice making sure the glass is filled to the brim.
Watch when the ice melts and the water flows over the edge of the glass.
This will tell you what is going to happen when the artic ice melts.
There will be absolute carnage.
I teach physcis to a level so you can all just shut it."
I have just tried your recommended experiment and just as I knew it would, the water level stayed the same. And you teach A-Level Physics? Time for a career change I think. It was a good insight into the intellectual capabilities of an AGW disciple though - thanks.
It wasn't all that long ago the global warming crowd was calling for the prosecution of anyone that disagrees with them. I thiunk its time to investigate these people find out how long they have known that GW is a hoax and tri them for conspiracy and all other charges. People like Al Gore should be made to pay back every dime he has gotten. Gore belongs in prison along with any other person spewing this junk science.
I think I can prove your contention about CRU manipulating data to cool off the past and heat up the present - using their own data:
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11582
And I have serious doubts about the recent claim CRU lost the raw data two decades ago:
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11630
Again, using their own data as evidence.
A note on the possible motivation: It's new money vs. old money, solar panels vs fossil fuels. And then there's carbon credits, the fraud of all frauds. PT Barnum is envious of this one. Al Gore has made some $200-million and he's just getting started. What's troubling, the scandal won't end it. Governments are marching forward.
sorry Jerrold McQueen. You are talking about Carbon Monoxide, not CO2.
According to ice core samples, an increase in CO2 does not cause a rise in temperature, but rather an increase in temperature precedes an increase in CO2 by several hundred years.
Al Gore, is a partner in the venture capital firm of Kleiner-Perkins and a co-founder of the United Kingdom-based investment firm of Generation Investment Management, each of which stands to gain financially from greenhouse gas regulation.
In October 2008, the New York Times Magazine featured a cover story on how Kleiner Perkins had invested $1 billion in 40 companies that would profit from new environmental and energy laws and regulations.
The environment should be protected, but global warming is not produced by human activity.
Those who continue to try to find a conspiracy or hoax in the many lines of evidence that indicate climate change is real and imminently devastating will have a very large guilt to bear. As a professional wildlife biologist for nearly 30 years, I have seen changes with my own eyes across many states. It ain't a hoax, folks.
Ok, so the word is out - we have been lied to and a government/media cover-up is underway. How do we stop this madness and what do we do next?
Is it too late?
Those who bought Al Gore's carbon credits should demand their money back.
Peer review is a crucial aspect of doing science. Mann et al have damaged the process. Scientists, not journalists and not politicians, must begin the process of re-building peer review. I urge blacklisting all those who have abused the peer review process. They should be stricken from editorial boards and never allowed to review research again. Government can assist in this by requiring that funded researchers agree to not publish any funded research in journals that fail to clean their peer-review house.
Here in Canada it's nine days and counting that our state run media has chosen to ignore this story,and I as a taxpayer abhor my hard earned money being confiscated from me to subsidize the MSM's agenda.
We now have everything coming to a head, the hidden hidden and subtle things coming into full, grotesque, view. The revealed lies of ClimateGate are no different from the revealed lies of StateGate (big government is NOT good for the governed!) which includes the 2,000 page HealthGate bills. I'm still waiting for DarwinGate to be fully revealed to the world. Let's finally learn to look at the evidence folks, for all areas of inquiry. Do NOT manipulate it to make it fit your desires.
Jerrold is an idiot. CO from the car exhause kills not CO2 at least get your junk science right. David isn't far behind he simple misses the whole point that the "data" he refers to is corrupt and unusable in any scientific endeavour with the slightest bit of integrity. Original data must be availible. Otherwise I could just claim to invent cold fusion without any proof. Then I could sell fusion credits because of all the morons who "want to believe". Always verify data. Everyone has an agenda, for something this important noone can be trusted without verification.
UEA's CRU = FAIL
We are gentlemen here; the scientists and Al Gore should at least be offered the opportunity to commit sepuku.
Um, Hey Telegraph, posting photographs of the cooling towers of a power plant that emit steam and only steam is not a good way to demonstrate you completely understand CO2 emissions.
The leftists and their political hacks that knew this movement was based on a Madoff style fraud all along are just going to keep pushing their agenda regardless of what the facts are. The 'Berlin Wall' of the new home for the communist movement has just fallen. What other leftist causes that we are all being victimized to support in the way of high taxes and corrupt spending is also based upon a fraudulent database? All of them I suspect.
Not only is this a HOAX, against all living people and all future generations, but it is a CONSPIRACY whereby (a) corrupt people like AL GORE are getting BILLIONS of dollars for "research" (b) jobs will be lost forever by the BILLIONS under "cap and trade" (c) Goverments will be able to "control" businessess through legislation for "green jobs" and (d) simple minded "young and old alike" will continue to "believe" in this SHAM!
Those who are lacking in their core beliefs (i.e. in God) seek to find (sadly) other means to believe in. Each time it is the EMPERORS NEW CLOTHES as it is this time. Hopefully, the World will not stand by affraid and silenced any longer. ENOUGH!
Able to guzzle more energy than dozens of normal men! Producing more hot air than a locomotive! Able to pile up carbon credits higher than a tall building in a single bound!!!
Look UP in the sky! It's ChickenLittle! It's FlyingSnakeOilSalesman! It's the Sultan of Hanging Chads! It's the Ayatollah of Heat! No, it's CarbonMan in a private jet painted green! And now following in the tradition of other great men such as Jimmy Carter and Yasir Arafat, he is the proud recipient of a Nobel Prize!!!
CarbonMan, strange visitor from an alternate reality who came to Earth with claims and scary predictions far beyond those of any sane and honest man, disguised as Fat Albert, and now joined by other members of the Royal GreenLeague such as BioFuelHummerMan and EcoCleaningWoman, they all fight a never ending battle for science-fiction, hypocrisy, power grabbing, money grubbing and the Hollywood way!
Not surprising at all..
If they were realy worried about rising CO2 they shud have spent all the time and money on CO2 level reduction technologies instead of new taxation models
I'm appalled at these so called scientists who dared to give monetary equivalence to Carbon reduction initiatives.How can you measure Future Carbon footprint in present day money with so many variables.
Case Dismissed.
And to all you witch doctors who believe in evolution you should know that the 'theory' of evolution vialates the 2nd law of thermodynamics that is entropy increases.
That means that things do not get more complex they get more simple.
So how did humans evolve from dogs again?
You fools.
My skepticism was enhanced by the attacks against those who believed that global warming is a problem and who brainstorm and offer solutions. Those ideas conceded that technology had caused these problems and had technological solutions for them. Whether it be releasing minuscule amounts of sulfur into the upper atmosphere to create a shield (much less than any natural volcanic activity) or solutions to sequester CO2 - any of these ideas were shot immediately shot down and scoffed at.
The only solution presented by the global warming camps was one that would completely destroy productive societies. A true scientific approach would have been to present the theory with all data, including how it was adjusted, and not to push one's own agenda at the same time.
Even proponents of the global warming theory have admitted that ceasing all human activity might not even resolve this "crisis". So why don't they accept true technological solutions to the problem they presented? Because they are looking for only one particular solution that meets their own agenda.
Gene Man
on November 29, 2009
at 09:42 PM
Very well said!
What disturbs me most about this incident is the way the British press have almost ignored it with some obvious exceptions. (Thanks Mr Booker!)
These seems to be this breathtakingly arrogant thinking within the press that if they do not talk about an issue, the public will not do so either. Well, they could not be more wrong!
As a test I decided to bring the subject up with everyone I spoke too over the last two days. After chatting to more than seventy different people I found only one prepared to admit she knew nothing about the subject and did not want to discuss it. All of the rest had an opinion they wanted to express and were happy to do so.
The people I spoke too ranged from little old ladies sitting outside a cafe in Kent to office workers on a smoke break in London's West End. In my local pub, there was outrage because Cameron has been sending emails out talking about how important climate change is and claiming to be the boy to sort it all out, while failing to even acknowledge the scandal growing up around these leaked revelations of fraud and invention.
Were I in a position to do so, I would advise journalists to drop their arrogance if they want their jobs (and publications) to survive in the modern world. However, such arrogance would probably prevent them from acknowledging they could ever be wrong in the first place!
With that in mind, it is good to see that real journalists like Mr Booker are still about and ready to speak the truth, even if it means swimming against the tide. Well done to you sir and to the Telegraph for letting you.
Just to explain how stupid you deniers are try this experiment.
Put some water in a glass with a piece of ice making sure the glass is filled to the brim.
Watch when the ice melts and the water flows over the edge of the glass.
This will tell you what is going to happen when the artic ice melts.
There will be absolute carnage.
I teach physcis to a level so you can all just shut it.
Those cooling towers are emitting steam. There isn't any more CO2 in them than in ambient air. It may seem ominous, but it's not. They are just man made clouds, made of harmless "di-hidrogen monoxide" (WATER VAPOR).
This whole sorry episode should help to highlight to people just what kind of world we live in. One full of lies and deceat perpetrated by the very people in some of the most trusted positions in society. Politicians, scientists & the worlds richest people all colluding to further their collective & individual interests and to hell with the rest of us scum who are used as pawns in their unbelievably evil games.
Think about it. Why no mainstream media coverage of this? Why does any politician asked about it brush it off as if it's nothing? Why do they not see what we clearly see other than to condeme the hacker(whisteblower) who im my opinion should be lorded for getting such important information out to the general public. If this hacker had got information on a peadophile sex ring would they be so condeming?
This kind of disgusting silence happenes so many times it's just most people don't people don't notice the other side of the story because you have to actually go and look for it. You won't get both sides on the nightly news. If you just watch the nightly news and read the papers for your information then if you have been taken in by all these climate change lies you will be taken in again soon enough by the next big thing.
There are so many occasions when the mainstream media stays silent on a big issue. We will do well to remember from this that questioning things is the right thing to do and not something to be ridiculed and labelled a "conspirary theory" which is another tactic they like to use to discredit someone or something that is getting too close to the truth. There is lots of real journalism going on all around us but you won't find it very often in the mainstream media which is why as more and more people wake up to how things are really being run they will lose more and more money in the process.
And so to one of the next big scandals and lies. The internet. The greatest invention ever and it's freedoms and benefits for learning and connecting with the world cannot be underestimated. They hate the freedom of information given to everyone with access to the internet. Get ready for them wanting to bring it under greater controls. They are already proposing a tax on the internet in the UK, bills are being passed in congress in the US with one senator actually saying "It would have been better if the internet has never been invented". Oh yes they hate that damn internet and it's freedoms. There will be fake cyber attacks on government computers, more stories of peoples personal information being stolen / sold etc etc in order to make us think it is a real issue. It will all be lies and twisted truths and of course the mainstream media will go along with this because together with the governmental control of the internet will come "paying for the news" as they block access to dissenting blogs etc to eliminate any alternative.
People need to spend more time on real issues like the freedoms they hold so dear instead of wasting their time on what Brad Pit had for breakfast. Which is yet another scandel, the use of celebrity and sports to entertain and discract the masses. Add things like global warming propaganda into poular shows like 24 etc. (This is openly admitted by 20th century and a video can be found on u tube i believe) The romans perfected this with the collusiams etc. This mind control and pychological manipulation has helped greatly to cause many of the social problems we all complain about on a daily basis and instilled beliefs in people(must like AGW) that simply have no basis. I think it was Stalin that said something like "If you repeat a lie often enough eventually it becomes the truth".
Al Gore, Dr Jones and the whole lot of them should be brought before a court of law if there is any justice left in this world. The hacker or whistleblower in this scandel has given heart that their is at least some decent people left in this world who have their priorities in the right place.
Not only is AGW a hoax, fear spread like H1N1 and the 'Koolaide' drinkers just kept drinking. What no one seems to grasp or even mention is that it takes 11.4 years of actual in-service use of a single wind turbine to offset the 'Carbon Footprint' to manufacture the turbine itself. So let us mass produce these, waste the energy in production and the wait 11.4 years to gain any possible benefit. Al Gore and his lackies need to be charged and tried at The Hague, all assets confiscated and returned to their rightfull owners, the taxpayers.
Can anyone not see this for what it is? Really. Everyone wants clean air & water but this is scam. Follow the money as they say and see who benefits from all of this. It isn't the people, I'll tell you that.
This is much bigger than the CRU, UEA or IPCC.
How else could the MSM blackout & the stonewalling of the truth by politicians & the UN be explained?
CUI BONO?
What I believe we are all witnessing is the public unravelling of a UN & government conspiracy to impose genocide on the people of our planet.
Please read the COPENHAGEN TREATY.
It is a charter for global government that is an unelected & tyrannical entity.
The people of the world must STOP this treaty from becoming law & then we must dismantle the UN & go after the people who run it who are the architects of this crime against humanity.
Time to organise mass protest against these criminal corporate interests.
Do not accept the false LEFT-RIGHT paradigms we have been encouraged to adopt.
To other potential whistleblowers & hackers, please come forward & remember your humanity before anything else.
It is amazing to see so many people around the world rising up to the lies we have been told.
It inspires me that people want truth & justice & this terrifies POWER.
Love to all.
In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”
Translation, massaged. An effort worthy of the most skilled Washington Spinmeister. Congratulations CRU.
To see how far the "global warming crisis" people have reached, look at the photo accompanying this article.
That's not CO2 rising in the air. It's H2O. Those white clouds are water vapor coming from cooling towers of a nuclear facility.
I am not too surprised about climategate. After all, in nearly every article on the subject you always see some garbage that is very similar to the picture in this article. A picture of steam is shown with the implication that the steam is CO2.
Simple solution, put those scientists who have been right all along, that is, the AGW skeptics, in charge the CRU and every other bunch of government-grant-grabbing climate-change pimps. Their mission? Shut them down, stack up the chairs, turn out the lights, and send them all home to await a real peer-review - a trial by a jury of their peers.
First, my sincere thanks to Christopher Booker for understanding the real issues in Climategate.
Next, my post about my personal experience with the CRU and "Freedom of Information" can be read at
http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/willis-eschenbachs-foi-request/
Finally, I have another post on the data issues (as opposed to the FOIA issues) at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/when-results-go-bad
If people have questions, please post them at those links.
Again, Christopher, well done.
For years it has been obvious the whole GW thing was a hoax, that is except for all the "true believers" in the cause of putting us all back into the stone age. To meet the carbon goals our socialist President proposed, it would take the USA back to the 1800's in our use of energy. Having lived in England (East Anglia no less!) years ago, it is embarressing to see the root of all this madness sprang from what used to be our old back yard. The truth, as always, wills out in the end.
What a tragic display of ingnorance is represented by this page.
Whether or not the Hadley's curves are a bit smoother than they ought to be, presents no substantial change to the analysis, detracts not a jot from the mountain of evidence, offers not an iota of solace to those who need to believe that 'everything will turn out OK', that our wasteful, hedonistic lifestyle could persist ad infinitum.
Of course nothing I or anyone else says will convince the denialist diehards - but, know this, your grandchildren will spit on your graves, for the contempt you have shown them.
Charles Dawson (Al Gore's predecessor) was an amateur British archaeologist who is credited and blamed with discoveries that turned out to be imaginative frauds, including that of the Piltdown man.
The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church.
(The Church of Global Warming says the earth is heating up, but I know that it is not, for I have seen the snow and ice and have felt their cold, and I have more faith in snow and ice than in the Church of Global Warming and it's High Priests)
- Ferdinand Magellan
Faith means not wanting to know what is true.
— Friedrich Nietzsche
There are those who scoff at the school boy, calling him frivolous and shallow. Yet it was the schoolboy who said, “Faith is believing what you know ain’t so”.
- Mark Twain
I hold a Ph.D in chemistry from The Johns Hopkins University. You may search for me on the Internet. In 1994, when I received my degree, there was no such thing as a climate scientist. Climate scientists (until recently, with Universities under pressure, I suspect) are self-proclaimed in their field. I have no direct experience in meteorology (the true Earth science relevant here) What I do have is a full understanding of reaction chemistry, molecular spectroscopy and photochemistry, and reaction kinetics, with enough experience thermodynamics and physics to speak on any level of authority, and I will put my qualifications up against "san quentin" or pretty much anyone else, for comparison so long as I live. It should also be understood that if I can't comprehend an explanation in excruciating detail about how a self-proclaimed climate scientists knows something is true, then you can hardly expect me to jump on the bandwagon. We'll start there.
I have seen precisely zero evidence that global warning is an artifice of Mankind. In fact, I have seen little evidence, much of which is specious (before Climategate), that warming is occuring at all. That CO2 levels are rising, and indeed they can be shown to be, and coincidentally the human population is growing, is a false correlation. "Proof" of that relationship has come in the form of a great deal of data, in which hugh assumptions about relationships are made (e.g. tree ring size to temperature) Also, another false correlation (one that becomes weaker in the last decade) is that between rising temperatures and rising levels of carbon dioxide.
The foundations laid down by these false correlations in the grand double correlation is: that Mankind has increased in numbers and consumes more and more fossil fuels, causing a rise in the CO2 component in the atmosphere. The increased CO2 traps more and more heat causing the average world temperature to rise.
Carbon dioxide is a minor component of our very complex atmosphere. It absorbs precisely three narrow bands of infrared light in a huge manifold of light up through the ultraviolet, that come from the Sun, much of which passes effortlessly to the planet surface. If CO2 and the rest of the atmosphere were that effective in trapping, or arresting incoming solar irradiation, then sunshine wouldn't feel warm on your face.
Water can be (should be)regarded in precisely the same way as CO2, with three bands, (close to the CO2 bands), absorbing infrared light. The main difference is, while there is anywhere from 250 to 350 ppm CO2 in the air (0.03%), distributed essentially equally across the globe, there can be anywhere up to 4 parts per hundred (4.00%) of excess water, distributed inhomogeneously, and locally, across the Earth. But there is much more water than that.
At the earth surface, oceans await to be heated by the solar influs. Consequently, clouds form. Clouds can, in fact, rob one of the sensation of warming one's face during the day. Clouds in turn can block out the sun (or lock in heat) completely. (This is why deserts get so hot in the daytime and cool so quickly at night, not because of the lack of atmospheric CO2, which is everywhere, but because of the lack of water vapor and bodies of liquid water trapping heat or resisting heating and cooling.)
(Direct evidence is seen in infrared radar, used to heighten contrast in weather precipitation. It doesn't see all that excess CO2 rising from industrial regions, but sees atmospheric water vapor, isolated or in clouds.)
Water is by far a more effective "greenhouse gas", and in fact, is the pre-eminent greenhouse gas on the planet, and so shall it always be.
So why not consider water as a componenet in the latest EPA endangerment finding, when CO2 has been labeled such. Because, that would be absurd to the layperson, and rightfully so. CO2 is singled out because it is policitally expedient to do so. Too bad the contribution of water is neglected in every AGW proponents' work. Their modelling might work out to be much more predictive.
Speaking of modelling, until Climate gate, the algorithms for their models have been a closely held secret. This is a shame to the scientfic community. I suspect that they are hiding something, but can't prove it, and that doubt works in their favor.
I DO know for a fact (because we really don't have a good way of doing it now) that the biosphere is completely neglected from the calculations, which again is absurd on its face. Green plants not only remove CO2 from the air, they do so endothermically, that is to say in the process of removal, they ALSO REMOVE HEAT from the system, the atmosphere. This is why forests, even rain forests in the equatorial tropics, are temperate. They'd be much warmer if they photosynthesis didn't consume light directly and convert water and CO2 into sugar and oxygen. At night, the reverse reaction happens and plant warm the cooling atmosphere and trap the heat with the CO2 and water they release. In the ocean, CO2 is taken directly from the water by green plants and algae and replaced by atmospheric CO2, fairly quickly, through wave agitation. This happens wherever plant life exists, everywhere on the planet, with some variances in season, and mode of photosynthesis
This process is the single most important factor in quantifying the kinetics of CO2. Modellers don't have sufficient algorithms to represent forests and green plants (and oceanic photosynthesis for that matter), SO THEY DON'T. What they must do is this: treat the world in the absence of human influence as forever in balance, and static, and assign whatever changes they find to human activity. This is a dangerous, incorrect, and neglectful set of assumptions, presuming that the world doesn't change unless Humans change it. Assuming that the terrestrial arena and the biosphere coupled to it are harmoniously constant is patently absurd. Any conclusions from this mindset are automatically hung on the evils of human activity (which was the original point, I think).
Anyone who knows something about chemistry and physics knows that first you must have the relationship right, then you design an experiment in isolation to derive an immutable, meaningful constant. Take, for instance, CO2. How many times have AGW proponents had to revise a "forcing constant"? "forcing constants" are proposed based on the assumption that the world is being forced out of an established equilibrium by human activity. The very definition of a "forcing constant" reveals it bias. The constant is based on a correlation between temperature rise, and CO2 concentration. Thanks to wealth of dispute data, and an inability to reconcile the original value for the constant with a lack of predicted event coming true, the constant has been changed. This is a pity. I have a better constant, a known, immutable one, to apply to carbon dioxide as a green house gas. Carbon dioxide can have, like every other substance that absorbs light, a molar absorptivity constant ascribed to it. Colored compounds have them, and so too can substances that absorb in the infrared but not in the visible. CO2 would have three such constants permanently affixed to it, one for each band of absorption. The constants would define, using a derived century-old law (Beer-Lambert), just how much light would be absorbed per molecule of CO2. Molar absorptivity. It's little wonder why climate scientists needed a new set of constants: they can't manipulate the true ones.
Just as a taste, we have false correlations, from multivariate data, with lots of room for statistical interpretation. The treatment of CO2 as a input variable and not a output. The negligence of factors which actually dominate the deterination of heat and carbon dioxide, namely photosynthesis and the dominance of water. Models whose algorithms are subjected to outside scrutiny. Manufactured constants.
Climategate is merely the end result of all these machinations, a bunch of liars getting thrust into the sunshine who are now trying to cover their deliberate attempt to dupe the world into doing what their told, by complaining about how they'd been robbed of their confidentiality.
They are fraud writ large and they should be stopped for once and for good.
There is now no evidence of either intelligence or integrity among so-called "scientists." When your politics trumps your honesty, it is definitely time to step down.
Sad. Pitifully sad.
The more the mainsteam media and politicians do nothing in the short term about the CRU scam perpetrated bt he CRU crew, the harder will be their fall, because eventually, truth will out, the Lie will crash and it will drag all its props with it; politicians, journalists etc.
I cannot not say it to the warmists: The scam has been confirmed. WE TOLD YOU SO.
For some years now I've been posting in various places my frustration with this alleged "Global Warming" alarm. I've made comment in news articles such as this one, an occasional blog, and of course corresponded with people I know and those I have made acquaintance with along the way. Through it all the "global warming" claims became worse and anyone who disagreed was chastised, labeled with negative names, and condemned for daring to dispute the claims. If you don't have some sort of a degree your voice means nothing.
So where are those brave and tough souls now that their wannabe man made disaster is falling apart before their eyes? Still feel like ganging up on me, or are you too busy crawling back into your hole?
Next question: Is anyone getting a list of all the names involved in promoting this global fraud/scam/scheme? It's high time prosecution was considered. The careers destroyed, lives ruined, billions of dollars stolen, is more than enough to bring these people to justice. Might I suggest Nuremberg?
Do some research on Dr. Hansen and you will find that in the 60's, when he was a fresh PhD, he starting screaming about global COOLING (mini ice age). I think he sees this as his opus and if the facts don't support it then why not fudge the numbers to get people to drink the coolaide.
Sean on November 29, 2009 at 07:16 PM
Gloat!!
peer reviews, junk science, mad scientists, al gore, consensis, good god this world is totally full of crap!!
i'll take rush limbaugh anyday!!
Club of Rome say they want a world government with Copenhagen.
Read back further (1970s) and they say they want to create and environmental scare to get a world government.
Its all online google it
For anyone still trying to figure out who to believe, consider this. Virtually no scientist has a vested interest in covering up something that could really destroy humanity in a matter of decades. It's the alarmists, not the skeptics, who have a reason to lie.
Hopefully Climate Change won't threaten David Welch. My only surprise is he didn't mention Thatcher as being primarily responsible.
Furthermore, anyone looking for an insight into the mindset of Gore should read the opening chapter of the magnificent 'Creating Equal' by Ward Connerly - who himself faced severe personal attacks for challenging another shibboleth of the leftist faith, Positive discrimination. Anyone reading this will see why anyone with such an outlook has, as far as I'm concerned, zero credibility.
Plaudits for the article itself are superfluous. Having been the first journalist to expose the true nature of the EU, heartiest congratulations to Booker for exposing the AGW brigade's true nature: a collection of ex Soviet agents and revanchist neo-Pyongyangites. Superb stuff.
Christopher Bookers article is the culmination of so many well deserved attacke on the climate change lobby. As a Chartered Chemist I regard ignoring or hiding scientific fact as the ultimate scientific blasphemy.
The people who have, if proved guilty, of distorting or hiding facts should be prosecuted for fraud since their 'reseaches' were probably sunded by public (i.e. my) money.
Dr. Tony Hart
Chartered Chemist.
If it wasn't for the green movement we would have had a nuclear war by now.
FACT.
You should be grateful to us. We have your best interests at heart but do we ever get any thanks from you morons?
Truely the biggest scandel of our times. And the biggest victory for truth, justice & common sense in the face of such a mighty foe as the scientific community, politicians & mainstream media. The size of this scandel cannot be underestimated.
The wonderful human being who obtained this information (by fair means or foul) has done such an immense public service that has served to destroy one of the biggest lies ever perpetuated on the masses. Not only should we demand criminal proceeding with regards to the scientists but what about our politicians? They will hide behind the science, hold their hands up and say "we were deceieved just like you"(just like the "intelligence" to do with the Iraq war and the "rules" to do with the expenses scandal), they are as much a part of this conspiracy as Dr Jones and his fellow criminals.
I hope that people who were taken in by the lie will be humble and show they truely care about humanity by admitting what has been revealed to us all in these emails and documents.
Enough is enough. For me this should open up the wider debate on just what the hell the people that we vote to govern us are up too. Who the hell do they think they are to manipulate the entire world in this way? Just who the hell do they think they are?
And worst of all is the fact that all the time and money that has been spent on this lie could have been put to good use in helping to reduce pollution in our air, food and water and help the millions of people(mostly little babies) who die all the time because they don't have access to the very basics of safe drinking water and enough food to eat.
Finally i have no doubt that the move from fossil fuels to more sustainable resources(which will come eventually)will be fully funded and researched by governments, scientists, inventors & corporations etc. because is it in their best interests to do so and the climate change scandel was just a side note to this to increase revenues through carbon taxes and increase the control of our lives through climate ligislation.
So will someone please tell our dear leaders about to get on a plane to Copemhagen that this has all been a complete none issue and if they really would save more of the earth by not getting on the planes in the first place! Of course they know full well about climategate and if what i have read of the Copenhagen Treaty is the final draft then they will be keeping their fingers in their ears until it's too late and the treaty is signed. And then what happens.....
To quote the words of many a climate change believer "we must do something for the sake of our children and our children's children".
This is the worst scientific scandal in history? Really?
I mean it is sad that they may have faked the data to tell me what I already know from my life experience.
My town is getting hotter, and there is no snow here yet, and there usually is starting in October.
I wear a sweater to church on Sunday morning, but I have often worn a full heavy coat.
Next year the North Pole will be gone. Will that be enough evidence then?
Charles Dawson (1864 – August 1916) was an amateur British archaeologist who is credited and blamed with discoveries that turned out to be imaginative frauds, including that of the Piltdown man.
The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church.
- Ferdinand Magellan
Climate science follows the Lysenko Principle, named for the Soviet scientist Trofim Denisovich Lysenko; namely, scientists who tell politicians what they want to hear live lives of luxury, so luxury always trumps truth.
The fact of the evidence is, we are living in a period between glaciations; the Earth is supposed to be twenty degrees warmer-eleven if you want metric; the sea levels have been rising for fifty thousand years-Britain and Ireland were once part of the European mainland: all of this was established science fifty years ago. Ignoring reality does not change reality.
"Are you people really stupid enough to believe that there's no side effect to increased and prolonged CO2 emissions?"
Yes, it seems that most people are. They don't have a clue. They have only their political ideology.
Atmospheric changes due to increased CO2 will continue, folks. Better keep an eye on the arctic ice pack, cuz when that disappears by about 2030, all he&! will break lose.
Bad behaviour by a couple of dolt-scientists does not invalidate the independent research of thousands of other scientists worldwide - all of whom continue to say the same thing.
The behavior of the CRU climatologists and their US comrades can be explained if one thinks of them as bureaucrats rather than scientists.
See "The war on the weather":
http://vulgarmorality.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/the-war-on-the-weather/
This is the Piltdown Man of Climatology, only this hoax has cost more than just national and scientific pride. And just like that fraud, those who supported it will do everything to avoid making themselves look a fool.
since the left is so good at lying, they seem to be content to continue their specialty here. there is now a balloon full of hot air coming from the usual sources (Krugman NYT, Robinson WaPo, on and on) claiming that this isn't really a scandal, that there is no "smoking gun." Vile liars all, they follow the say-something-often-enough-and-it-becomes-true school of scientific and academic reasoning. Watch out, because people like these vermin will not sit back and allow the truth to speak, they will actively spin and lie in the pursuit of their false goal.....
J Bull on November 29, 2009 at 08:19 PM
You are not alone in your thoughts, you may be interested in what is being said here by Judith Curry
Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/an-open-letter-from-dr-judith-curry-on-climate-science/
Further to the MWP is local and insignificant followers this will be of no value, to others seeking knowledge you may like this site that aggregates the various studies onto a clickable image of the world.
http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html
h/t to and article at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/the-medieval-warm-period-a-global-phenonmena-unprecedented-warming-or-unprecedented-data-manipulation/
This is a tremendous valediction for you, Christopher. I read your "Scared... " book, or most of it. It looked like a lot of hard work and I wouldn't have liked to release it into such a hostile environment. Bet you don't get too many of these a week!
A very good and important article Mr Booker. Thank you for all your work on this dreadful scam.
Scott in East Anglia wrote:"Is there someone who can predict the result of all the expensive carbon credits suddenly becoming worthless world-wide?" What a morning that would be to awaken to! And no you haven't got the wrong end of the stick these creeps tried to hand you, having deftly flipped it back on them.
They now say they will share all their data with the public.. but sooo sorry.. the orginal temps are lost (throw away)and all we have is the adjusted temps after our corrections to show AGW.. billions of public taxpayer dollars were spent to compile this load of crap.. this is a total fraud. Governments (people) who continue to allow this, deserve the slavery that will follow.
The most important aspect of this has been that it has brought the issue to the attention of people around the world but most especially to the ever trueting ever accepting acquiescent Brits. The critical points are:
1) Senator Inhofe's long list of dissenters demonstrates that hundreds of climate and related scientists, including many IPCC participants, are prepared to stand up and challenge man-made climate change. Even more challenge the validity of the computer model predictions and yet more dare not speak of their scepticism lest they lose their jobs. Please don't be tempted to belittle this, we all need a job and there is much intolerance of sceptics, especially in local and central government...no consensus
2) Few scientists would say that man-made climate change was done deal (Dr Ben Santer admitted that)... no consensus
3) An examination of the facts reveals many flaws in the AGW hypothesis. I have posted them before so I will not repeat them. It is not rocket science to see the weaknesses but most of the press and many (not all)politicians have used emotion, fear and sympathy to promote heavier intervention of the state excusing tax and price hikes into the bargain...
4) No evidence of AGW with 0.6 deg C rise in 100 years but continuous increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The temperature trend since 1998 is totally inconsistent with the hypothesis as was the 1940 to 1970 cooling period (and the erratic temperature swings throughout the 1970 to 1998)
5) Now Climategate - the data showing cooling looks likely to have been covered up.
To cap it all Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society a well known AGW proponent is likely to chair any enquiry.
Will the turkey vote for Christmas?...see the next thrilling episode of Climategate.
Just how much of this bovine excrement can we Brits take?
Where is the great Conservative 'little state' philosophy?...backing Copenhagen like lemings (except for a few brave exceptions). You could expect it of Green Brown and Climate Clegg but not of the individual libery party (RIP).
Thanks are due to Christopher Booker and the other correspondnts who keep us enlightened on the need to fight against 'The Age of Stupid.'
J Bull on November 29, 2009 at 08:19 PM
You are not alone in your thoughts, you may be interested in what is being said here by Judith Curry
Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/an-open-letter-from-dr-judith-curry-on-climate-science/
Further to the MWP is local and insignificant followers this will be of no value, to others seeking knowledge you may like this site that aggregates the various studies onto a clickable image of the world.
http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html
h/t to and article at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/the-medieval-warm-period-a-global-phenonmena-unprecedented-warming-or-unprecedented-data-manipulation/
The world has been "Chicken Littled" by this group of so-called scientists who have independently and collectively ALMOST pulled off the scam of the ages.
The person or persons who revealed these e-mails need to at least, receive the same respect as did those reporters who exposed Watergate...
And the MSM is totally in on this too, it seems, because this story is incredibly not reported! We, the People of the World are being duped and manipulated.
The whole bunch of 'elites' involved must be completely exposed and banished. This topic must begin again with telling the climate truth with honest transparency. Obama must not go to Copenhagen to vote to enslave us here in America. Let's just STOP this nonsense today. The evidence is plain for the everyday person to see...we won't be fooled again by arguments that support global warming.
This is beginning to look more like Piltdown Man every day. A fraud is committed and anyone challenging the fraud is a denier or dupe of the energy companies. Albert
J Bull on November 29, 2009 at 08:19 PM
You are not alone in your thoughts, you may be interested in what is being said here by Judith Curry
Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/an-open-letter-from-dr-judith-curry-on-climate-science/
Further to the MWP is local and insignificant followers this will be of no value, to others seeking knowledge you may like this site that aggregates the various studies onto a clickable image of the world.
http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/the-medieval-warm-period-a-global-phenonmena-unprecedented-warming-or-unprecedented-data-manipulation/
Thank you for keeping this story going. Unfortunately, many people I know only watch entertainment related TV (Jon Stewart, etc), or read their left-leaning blogs. They think they get news from our mainstream news sources (LA Times, ABC, NBC evening news). I'm afraid unless a person goes looking for it, they'll never hear about Climategate.
Sadly, the true-believers of man-made global warming think - because they believe what they are told by popculture - that they are the sand ones and we skeptics are the loons.
But only someone without wisdom and any critical thinking skills would accept blindly that the input of numbers by humans (some scientists) to create a hockey stick graph is proof enough. Some of us are aware there are many scientists with opposing views about whether the earth is warming or cooling; how it's caused, if warming does exist. Because the climate is always in flux and has warmed and cooled long before humans, many of us are not so willing to cripple our economy due to a questionable science. We have questions, questions which have yet to be answered.
To call critical thinkers "deniers" is a joke. You who do not question and believe blindly are denying that there are opposing views. This climate debate is far from closed.
I am amazed by the tact that the "scientists" who BELIEVE this bunk have taken after the cat was let out of the bag, i.e., you simpletons obviously are misunderstanding and taking out of context e-mails between we who know better than you and in any event, global warming is truth. The point being, they dismiss the controversy outright and robotically repeat the mantra that global warming is truth.
Oh so many comment, everybody is so quick to get on the 'I told you so' bandwagon. On both sides at best this is a conspiracy theory, you haven't proven anything on either side I am afraid. I would like you to err on the side of cleaning up after yourself, which at the least, global climate warnings are making us do. We can't go on burning and polluting and think that will be fine and without effect. Even better is that again as a conspiracy, why is your unanswered question. They have no secure reason to do this, they have no definitive goal to achieve by going down this path, for a scientist, even a dodgy one, it's a bad move. And most of all with conspiracies is the fact that a secret can not remain hidden for any length of time. Governments all over the world get caught out on the simplest of things, do not for one second ever believe that they can keep a secret, it's not possible at any level.
David Welch : "think they should be freely provided with information that has cost millions of pounds to collect."
and who paid for that information ? I think that you will find that it's us - the people - we own it !
To AGW proponents:
A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions. (proverbs 18:2)
Why dont we offer the US authorities the CRU from the University of East Anglia instead of Gary McKinnon ?
What would most people on the Clapham omnibus say , do we think ?
The mental image most people have of science derives from Newton, Einstein, Maxwell, etc. These were scientists whose love of Nature (and God) drove their efforts. The science "community" in those days consisted hundreds, perhaps thousands of dedicated individuals.
World War II changed all that. Science was recognized as a key factor in winning the war, and science became "big business". The power, prestige, and rewards are today large enough to influence almost anyone, and the revelations about "peer-review" show how easily the system is controlled and managed. If one wishes to pursue science, one must "play the game". The same things have been recently revealed in physics, where "string theorists" controlled the game for decades. Even today, the failure to find the Higgs boson (aka the "God Particle") while threatening the Standard Model of particle physics, also threatens the status of one hundred thousand or so physicists, managers, bureaucrats, and others engaged in 'big science'. Fortunately, the costs of building and operating CERN and the LHC are insignificant compared to the costs of imposing the AGW controls on a world already in financial crisis mode. The largest support for AGW comes from scientists whose livelihood is directly related to the production of "approved" results, and these results "justify" the socialist agenda in the never-ending effort to achieve total control of our lives.
The political agenda and the corruption built-in to the systems (from 'peer-review' to 'main stream media') make it difficult to know where truth lies, but the unearthing of the Climategate emails demands a much harder look before we cripple the global economy for political reasons.
What's truly disgusting is the fact that the entire American media establishment and the Liberal elites in Washington are totally trying to ignore this scandal, as it completely undermines the rational for more than half the legislation they want to impose on us.
Blasphemy! To deny Global Warming religion is Blasphemy, I say!
LOL!!
At the very least, the AGW believers will find it necessary to debate this publicly to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that it exists since they want to use it as an excuse to fleece all of us into oblivion and the very air that we breathe.
J Bull on November 29, 2009 at 08:19 PM
You are not alone in your thoughts, you may be interested in what is being said here by Judith Curry
Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/an-open-letter-from-dr-judith-curry-on-climate-science/
Lysenkoism in science is alive and well.
Know the CRU today admitted that the original raw data has been dumped to save space.
Something is rotten in East Anglia!
"However, the BBC's deliberate suppression of this news is the ultimate betrayal of the 'ordinary' people who pay for its upkeep and it has forfeited any right to their protection or respect. Its Pravdaesque behaviour is nothing short of a national scandal."
On the contrary, they are simply protecting licence-payers cash as they've already commissioned Dr Ian Stewart of Plymouth University to head up a new 400 episode series on the forthcoming climate catastrophe. This time, instead of driving around in a van with Michael Mann's fictitious hockey stick drawn on the side, he's going to peddle around on a bicycle made of cheese.
Joking aside, it was discussed on Newsnight and on Question Time. The problem was the questioners didn't have a clue what it was actually about. Mr Marcus Brigstock showed himself to be the most unbelievably gullable twit, as did Punt and Dennis on Radio 4 on Friday evening. None of them have a clue what they're talking about and I suspect when this story really breaks, if it ever does, they will be left looking very silly indeed.
Funny, the same people, Gore and the other clowns that created global warming created ACORN, Planned Parenthood and lessor evils. When will we learn?
I congratulate Mr Booker for reporting this story in the mainstream media. Until the climate scientists (so called, it would appear) operate on the basis of complete transparency, they have lost all credibility.
Imagine those doing drug testing doing this - throwing out data for people who did poorly on the drug and throwing out data for people who did well on the placebo. If found out not only would the drug not be approved but they would probably go to prison.
Can someone in editorial get a grip. You have a picture of a non-CO2 emitting Nuclear Power Plant to "illustrate" the farce of CO2 driven global warmism. Oh, never mind. That kind of irony I can understand.
Misleading information..... Back in 2007, I read an article in the Daily Telegraph concerning the consented (at that time) Bradwell Wind Farm. The article carried a photomontage suggesting that, from the Roman Road or close by, the iconic view of St Peter’s Chapel looking east would be despoiled by the presence of 10 tall wind turbines and a high voltage electricity transmission pylon all sitting on the protected salt marsh behind St Peter’s. How misleading... since the actuality was that the turbines would not have appeared in that view at all – they would in fact be perhaps up to 1 km or more behind the viewer – they would be in the opposite direction with the proposed grid connection being led away from the site underground! I found the visualisation used by the author of the article grossly, misleading. And the name of the journalist? Christopher Booker. Is this the same Christopher Booker?
Thanks for the article. I had suspected the same thing for many years, but since I'm not part of the scientific establishment, I had no way to confirm my suspicions. What's most interesting, I think, is the money trail. I wonder how much of this "data-tampering" goes back to some sort of grant or other benefit conferred on the scientists who perpetrated it. Yesterday I read an opinion piece that pointed out the influence fossil-fuel producers have had on this debate; now I wonder who had the most to lose if "climate change" was really debunked...
J.Hansford at 08:22 AM
'The hypothesis of AGW is flawed and a fraud to boot'
I agree!
How gullible we citizens of the world appear to be. How content we have been to march behind the Pied Pipers of climatology
How shameful we have been not to demand more proof! What will they do next? And will we suck it up? Oh yes I do believe we will..
I've been reading comments on sites all over the net. It's amazing that AGW proponents are still repeating the same now-discredited arguments, and even continuing to insist that the earth is still warming, even though the CRU emails reveal that the most ardent AGW proponents know earth entered a cooling trend years ago. Truly all they can do is repeat the lies and set up staw men. Most of them sound like they haven't even read the emails, let alone the incriminating code notations.
Lt Scrounge : I've been toying with the idea that the environmentalists and the bankers may have actually been working hand in hand . What you say rather ties it together . The Democrats rolled over very easily so they might have been part of stage 2 of the plan , Bush and co. being stage 1 . It's all not only very barmy but also extremely dangerous and damaging for the whole World .
There is no point in expecting even one of our MPs to demand an independent enquiry into the abuse of taxpayers' money by the CRU at UEA. They are more interested in supporting scares stories to enable them to take more of it from us.
In this age of universal deceit, most "scientists" have conflicts of interest.
For those who care, it has long been known that the peer review system used by scientific journals was subject to deception too easily. This needs to be fixed, and the scientific community needs to establish its own watch dogs to monitor publications that fail to guard against bias and fraud.
It is very sad to see sheeple still clinging to the idea of AGW. some commenting on this article. Ignoring the release of the emails, don't you get even a little suspicious when the scientists and front men like Al Gore won't debate the issue. data that is the foundation of their claims is lost, like the dog ate my homework! If this is truly happening the way they claim they would invite all to see and review their work.If theories were never scrutinized or questioned we would still think the earth is flat.
Al Gore and the lying scum in the "global warming" pseudo-science crowd are implementing a massive fraud to make themselves money and shift power to the UN and its globalist puppet-masters.
This fraud is much bigger than the Piltown Man and will go down in history of science on the same level as torturing Galileo.
For a common person in the US, filing a single fraudulent document with the government results in 10 years imprisonment and a $100,000 fine. What, besides Algore, puts these pseudo-scientific criminals beyond the reach of the law.
Any sane person realises the seasons are no more and global warming can only be the cause.
The nay sayers like Mr Lawson and his backers need to realise we don't believe you!!
Silly little peasants!
Climate Change is reality.
Cap & Trade is the future.
Resistance/denial is futile.
Al Gore wins!
Nothing can stop the establishment of a one-world government at this point.
Nothing.
Change you can believe in...
The forecast for tonight will be dark, getting slowly light towards morning. (thx to George Carlin's hippy-dippy weatherman)
I would like to note, that at the top of this news story is an image. This I would like to point out how these news medias are trying to "deceive" people.
They show you a picture of STEAM coming from these plants and then under it say " CO2 emissions will be on top of the agenda at the Copenhagen summit in December Photo: Getty "
As if that's CO2 just pouring out.
That could not be any more misleading of a news org. What ever happened to real news reporting? This page is clearly just to imprint the idea these plants are just dumping C02 into the air, and in fact it's nothing more than steam.
Wow! Biased, left-leaning academics. Imagine that. Try getting a job in academia as a conservative (hint: have a back-up plan).
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/when-results-go-bad/#more-13373
What's that phrase the alarmists like to use - "it's worse than we thought". Maybe we should use that too.
Here we see a climate expert being told that if his data doesn't show warming that he must be a CO2 denier! Because CO2 has gone up and therefore temperatures must have too. Presumably the implication is that he should "adjust" his data so it fits the holy truth that there has been warming.
Lies, damned lies and HadCRUD. (And I think that rather damns the other fiddled databases as well!)
Hal speaks on climate change:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ARZl4rG_44
So much for the scientific method of observation and statistical data that we have been teaching our school kids to use for years. When you manipulate scientific data for a political outcome you are no longer scientists you are mere political hacks and thugs!
Thanks so much for your article! it seems to be impossible to read anything about it in the MSM in the Netherlands, obviously big brother is doing a proper job here.
Global warming scam hides the more serious denial of democracy that Mandlescum and Bliar, Cripple Broon have foisted on us.. elected undemocratic idiots who should be hung for treason (retrospectively reintroduced for them !)
The thing is I have recently started an energy systems postgraduate course, which has strong renewable energy elements within it, and although I was sceptical about the effects of CO2 on the climate from the start, my motivation was that a looming energy-gap was approaching and that in general, cleaner, more efficient, alternative energy technologies should be developed. And now this has happened (along with reading other, so-called, dissenting views on the subject of AGW). Well, it just knocks the wind out of your sails to be honest and I find myself doubting the need to carry on. I will, but it will be a struggle. What is most galling is I am not particularly young and I am a professional engineer, but I felt the need to diversify – and now all I feel is basically that of being conned by a bunch of charlatans! It will certainly affect the choice of optional modules I will make in the future. More traditional technologies will be my chosen choice (including Nuclear).
I sincerely hope charges are made against these crooks, cheats and liars. I am so angry with these people!
As someone who has nearly lost friends (mainly schoolteachers) by insisting that climate change is unproven and effectively a con by a clique of scientists eager to improve their careers, sit on international committees and be fawned over by politicians, Climategate has given me a glow of self-righteousness. We shouldn't be surprised by this sort of shenanigans, it were ever so.
In the nineties, for example, it was virtually impossible to get anything published that contradicted the "comet killed off the dinosaurs" theory as this was seen as contradicting the "nuclear winter" concept which meant that you must be a supporter of nuclear weapons. Peer reviewers simply conspired to exclude contrary arguments. Now that we have e-mails to read we can more clearly see into the "climate change" corrupt can of worms in a way that wasn't possible then.
I doubt if anything will come of these revelations. A whole generation has been indoctrinated by the Greens through Geography lessons in school, politicians have nailed their colours to the "climate change" mast and the Royal Institute is part of the problem rather than being part of the solution. A whitewash is a near certainty.
We need an Official Inquiry, under a judge not a scientist, to investigate if the so called evidence, on which multi-trillion costs will be based, is reliable or just so much malignant computer drivel. I can't see the Government appointing one.
The myth of HIV causing AIDS is next.....
This leak simply verifies information that I've had on my blog http://survivingscrounge.com for a month. The entire global warming scam is just that, a SCAM. Saving the environment is not their goal, controlling people's lives is. Here are quotes from people who have their hands in this up to their elbows.
"We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy." - Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
Two Sources: http://www.globalwarming.nottinghamshiretimes.co.uk/, http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=7183
--
"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony, climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world." - Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
Two Sources:
http://www.globalwarming.nottinghamshiretimes.co.uk/, http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=3007
"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." - Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
Two Sources: http://climatesight.wordpress.com/2009/04/12/the-schneider-quote/, http://www.green-agenda.com/gaia.html
--
"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true." - Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace
Two Sources: http://www.the-thinking-man.com/environmentalism.html, http://www.prisonplanet.com/cnns-climate-change-dishonesty.html
"Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control." -Professor Maurice King
Two Sources: http://www.alanwattsentientsentinel.eu/english/transcripts/Alan_Watt_CTTM_LIVEonRBN_253_Depopulation__the_Opiate_of_the_Intelligentsia_Feb102009.html, http://autarchic.tripod.com/files/quotations2.html
--
"Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun." - Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
Two Sources: http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/climate-change/climate-change-overview/2/, http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Future-of-Energy-by-George-Washington-090308-140.html
Notice that they talk about how it doesn't matter if the data is wrong or even phony if they can use it to force their economic policies onto the people of the industrialized world. Tim Wirth, as President of the UN Foundation, would have been up to his eyeballs in determining which scientists contributed to the UN IPCC report. While Professor Brown advocates impoverishing the people of the developed world, Professor Ehrlich has long been an advocate of using extreme measures to decrease the world's population. His protege, and co collaborator on at least one book, and advocate for mandatory abortions, John Holdren is Barack Obama's Science advisor. Obama's Climate Change Czar, the well known Socialist Carol Browner has said that they fact that the leaked information indicates fraud on a massive scale doesn't change the administration's policies on climate change one bit. I just have to wonder what would? Dropping her in her drawers in a late season snow storm in the Colorado mtns? Many thanks to attorney Alan Korwen for collecting and forwarding these quotes.
Hysteria Watch
6.10
Get your facts straight before you get pompous over the scientific competence of AGW sceptic posters.
China has not agreed to cut CO2 emissions. It has merely made the cynical political gesture of promising to increase them at a slightly less massive rate than they currently doing - which makes any puny attempts at reduction on our part totally pointless.
Christopher Booker's campaign on asbestos was aimed at preventing direputable businesses making fortunes out of claiming that white asbestos, which is harmless, is as dangerous as other forms. He has been proved to be absolutely correct.
As you were totally wrong about both of these issues, perhaps you could give us the details of your scientific credentials
This will set back all science for many years. Its amazing how just a couple of leftist radicals can ruin an entire field of study. There will be no trust from anyone, even deserving scientists will not be trusted. I feel sorry for the good one's, but if it had to happen, global warming was the right science to stop. It has become dangerous.
Climatologist facts of life:
'Global Warming' puts food on the table.
Natural global fluctuations don't.
Hunger > Conscience
Therefor:
Exaggerate warming
Suppress cooling
Results:
Eat well > sleep lightly
The climate activists believe that the CO2 is the reason for the climate changes. However, the chemical calculations prove that the reason is the temperature changes of the oceans.
Warm seawater dissolves much less CO2 than cold seawater. Please see details from:
http://www.antti-roine.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=73
Hilary Drake comments, "Polar bears are real" (duh) "have children" (say what?), and, "are not the best swimmers." Wrong, Hilary.
If this is an example of the thought process of the standard
Gore-on, the world is in trouble.
Then can swim for several hours without tiring, and have been tracked swimming for over 60 miles.
"Did all you wing nuts also believe the cigarette companies for decades when they said that dumping tar in your lungs didn't pose a health risk? Are you people really stupid enough to believe that there's no side effect to increased and prolonged CO2 emissions?" Hey mindless libtard: we can't even forecast the WEATHER with any degree of accuracy outside of a week and mouth breathing drooling libtards like you want to ramrod economy killing, draconian, and fascist legislation down our throats for Junk Science? Oh I don't THINK so. Oh and by the way, the last 10 years temps have DROPPED.
The guest speaker at the upcoming Copenhagen climate gathering should be the 'hacker' who unveiled all these telling emails.
And why is this story not being blared from every media outlet in the world??? They are too busy with Sarah Palin, Oprah, and now, Tiger Woods.
I cannot wait for Algore to be humiliated along with his pathetic liberal lemmings.
If there were 6,000,000,000 jelly beans in a box. And 130 of the jelly beas were red. Would a there be a consensus among scientist that the next hundred or thousand jelly beans be red? OF COURSE NOT! For these scientist to make these foolish conclusions on a microfraction of data is ridiculous. They want to make predictions based on 130 years of temperature data versus 6 billion years the planet has been around. They know that is foolish so then they try to predict temperatures of 1000 or 10,000 years ago. But they can not replicate one~
Please, please. please. No more "gate" anything. It's Climaquiddick.
[Back in 2006, when the eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre's demolition of the "hockey stick",]
This did NOT happen. The "hockey stick" remains even if one uses the analyses Wegman prefers.
How many people really think we will see the raw data?
"As soon as possible" or "ass soon as it can be sanitized"?
These psuedo-scientists have already shown that they can not be trusted. Nothing they produce should be trusted.
Their arrogance in calling themselves scientist is disgusting.
A true scientist follows where the data leads. Even if it doesn't lead where it was expected to.
To pervert the data to lead where the "scientist" wants it to lead isn't science.
I practice healthy environmental practices and believe we should improve our environmental policies. I'm a liberal. I've never believed in AGW and i take my skepticism from Freeman Dyson who has stated that we simply don't have the scientific capacity to accurately measure this. Dyson is a nobel prize winning physicist and undisputed genius. What is clear is that we are polluting oceans, destroying ground water among many other irrefutable problems that i believe we should be allocating our resources.
Brown unveils £13bn climate fund.
Money will help poor nations before Copenhagen treaty comes into force.
Gordon Brown warned of a worldwide "climate emergency" last night as he unveiled a £13.4bn global fund to help poor countries cope with the effects of "global warming".
At the Commonwealth heads of government summit in Trinidad, the Prime Minister called on developing nations to start cutting their greenhouse gas emissions immediately and tackle what he called the "new historic injustice" of climate change. Mr Brown said the resources, including £800m of British money over three years, would "kick-start" the Copenhagen climate change process ahead of the crucial UN talks in the Danish capital next month.
The Copenhagen Launch Fund has the backing of Commonwealth nations, and the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, who arrived in Trinidad to address Commonwealth leaders yesterday after attending the Amazon summit in Brazil. Sources said it would also be backed by the US. The money will be available from next year and will fund measures to alleviate and adapt to climate change, including paying countries to halt deforestation and build flood defences and renewable power stations.
It will be split 50-50 between grant in aid to help countries adapt to rising sea levels, hurricanes and drought, and "payment by results" to nations that mitigate the effects of rising emissions.
Some 90% of future growth in emissions will be generated by developing nations, and one purpose of the fund is to discourage further depletion of the rain forests, which accounts for 20% of carbon emissions. Rain forest nations such as Brazil, Guyana and Papua New Guinea will receive funding only when they can show, through satellite photographs, that they have stopped cutting down trees.
Addressing 52 Commonwealth leaders in Port of Spain, Mr Brown said: "Together the collective power of the Commonwealth must be brought together to tackle a new historic injustice, that of climate change. We face a climate emergency: we cannot wait until 2013 to begin taking action."
A legally binding Copenhagen treaty is not expected to be in force for another year because of a failure to reach agreement on cutting carbon emissions. Financing for tackling climate change – expected to reach £89bn by 2020 as a result of the treaty – would not start until 2013. Mr Brown said the launch fund would therefore bridge the gap between now and 2013.
Britain's contribution is not new money but will come from the Department for Energy's environmental transformation budget. The Prime Minister said: "From London to Trinidad and Tobago to Copenhagen may seem a roundabout journey, but this is one of the roads to Copenhagen to make sure we get an agreement that will work."
-------------
Other sources including the BBC have reported the amount of this fund as £6bn. But no matter, as we all know that many countries will default on their promises to pay money to poor countries, as they have done in the past. However Gordon Brown, being an honest man, will ensure that the British share is paid. His government is still intent on spending our taxes on pursuing their crusade to save the planet from so-called "global warming".
It doesn't seem to matter to them that the whole thing has now been exposed as a fraud, or maybe no one has told them yet. That is aided by the fact that the mainstream press want to play down this news by mentioning it briefly then letting it drop. But that will not wash, as law suits are now being prepared in the United States against the perpetrators.
I have seen the defence that the leaked e-mails do not detract from the fact that the science is still "sound". Journalists seem to accept that, but if they took the trouble to get an expert to look at the technical documents that were leaked, they will find that they are far from "sound". Ask yourself this question; Would you buy a car from that dealer down the road if someone told you he was being investigated under suspicion of fraud and law breaking?
If you deny global warming you make baby Jesus--I mean Obama cry.
Thank you for expanding the discussion of ClimateGate. If this plays out the way it should, the public uproar will bury the weak/non-existent underpinnings of the CAGW hoax.
How are these scientists any different than Mafia thugs who conspire to fix games or horse races? Only these guys are supposed to be educated leaders...they should be charged with crimes much like teachers who molest their students and prohibited forever for publishing studies. This is truly a misuse of power by a person in trust. Seriously, I hope some criminal charges result. By the way, GREAT JOB to these hackers...we need more of this type stuff!
How many billions of dollars have these crooked scientists and politicians made from this scam? Every one of them needs to be investigated, reviled censured, fired and/or impeached. This includes Algore. What a shameful way to rob and deceive from the public. Begone, Green Communists!
I hate to say that I, along with a cadre of other "denialists", told you so. But... On second thought I don't hate to say it. We told you so.
Now the global warmists are not going to change their collective mind. The GW movement is a religion. Their belief is more important than any scientific fact or any skepticism about the conclusions. There are three key arguments the GW's make. First that GW is happening. Now this, the very fabric of their religion is in question. Second that GW is caused by man's activity, which is additionally in question as many believe it is much more influenced by the sun than by these other factors. And third that global warming is a bad thing. I have seen little evidence that the current climate is optimal. There are good arguments that some warming would be a good thing. All three of these aspects of the GW argument must be fully and completely understood before we form global governance that may have worse outcomes.
In the mean time, some efforts to begin to wean society of fossil fuels is a good thing, as long as it doesn't go too far. Fossil fuels will run out one day and we do need longer lasting renewable energy sources.
For Big Al:
"After spending a goodly number of years associated with Academia, both as a undergraduate student, a grad student, adjunct faculty and finally as an administrator I have come to fully distrust the academic community."
Me too Al.
Many years ago I was, for a short and unbearable time, a lecturer and I have to say I've never since met a bigger bunch of useless deadlegs than I met at that polytechnic.
Academia is crammed with people who wouldn't survive for a microsecond in the real world.
The creeps, the terminally incompetent, the bone-idle, the brown-nosers, the Toytown plotters... you don't find a more worthless collection of tosspots than you do in Academia.
Hysteria Watch on November 29, 2009 at 06:10 PM
"The Chinese government evidently have "bought" the need to cut cabon emissions - scarcely bleeding heart greenies and I would be certain their scientists have been looking very hard and sceptically at the "western" evidence on AGW."
I have seen these statements and as I read it they have stated that they will reduce the carbon intensity of their product manufacture by something that may approach 40% but with the expectation that Chinese production will double by 2020 this will still be a net increase in CO2 output. This seems a careful statement so I suspect that this also means that other energy related activities are not included in this pledge. For the Chinese this is likely as much an energy cost cutting exercise that is becoming available to them as they introduce energy from the 100 nuclear power stations that are currently planned and being built, and maybe now with this stated pledge get Copenhagen money from the West to pay for it. I think it is Westinghouse that will install their first third generation Nuke Plant in China, they used to be a British Company. Is not nuclear power also on the forbidden list for eco activists?
Hysteria Watch - what are you talking about? Booker was clearly differentiating between blue and white asbestos and I have yet to see his claims denied. But do please prove me wrong.
You say you are a geologist. You do not appear to have read much of the evidence from your colleagues otherwise I fail to see how you can still have an "open mind".
Seriously, folks, this is a handful of guys out of thousands of folks doing research, the overwhelming evidence of climate change is still overwhelming. 10 guys didn't lead a vast global conspiracy to manipulate the whole world so Al Gore could make some money, that's preposterous. Forgetting about the billions of dollars the oil industry makes every quarter? As opposed to the comparatively meager funds research scientists get through grants to study?
You must all remember that this is a business.Without their government grant thses lying scientists would have to get proper jobs. On BBC's Question Time last week a guest speaker was jeered and sneered at for daring to ask people to have an open mind on the subject of climate change.. The countryside the seas are being desecrated by the obscene proliferation of wind farms that produce very little energy for the money that they cost.
it's grants for them and taxes on us = climate change.
Simple solution really - RELEASE ALL THE RAW DATA FOR PROFESSIONAL AND PUBLIC SCRUTINY-until this is done global warming is nothing but a scam.
Thank you Christopher Booker and also a big salute to the unknown hacker who I have dubbed "George". He/she deserves to be knighted for stabbing the Dragon of a worldwide carbon dioxide tax - let's hope it turns out to be a mortal wound.
If the Dragon dies - you will be "St George" forever.
"Well Dr. Jones.... Again we see there is nothing you possess which I cannot take away. And you thought I'd given up." - Belloq, Raiders of the Lost Ark
Polar bears do not "need ice" to survive. They have cubs, not "children". "global warming" ain't melting the ice, tootsie, and polar bears are in fact excellent swimmers. Have you always been a mindless twit, or was your comment some kind of joke?
Climategate, like the United Nations, is just another indicator of the real threat and dangers of a one world government.
Rats! Do you mean that all these promises about global warming are bunk? I was so hoping for a warming planet, as opposed to the far greater calamity of a cooling planet. Personally, I highly endorse global warming. We should work harder to ensure warming, rather than cooling.
Shame on you bunch of idiotic warming-deniers. If you angry lot taking big oil's side are not directly benefiting from the oil industry, you're nothing but stupid peasants heralding your own destruction for the benefit of your royal corporate masters. You're chickens celebrating Colonel Sanders.
As for Christopher Booker, if he had his way, you'd all have asbestos-insulated houses and workplaces and die hideous deaths for that other industry he pimped for.
Booker is a cynic's cynic, a dissolute, soulless whore, for sale to any corporate polluter, poisoner, destroyer with deep enough pockets to pay his hourly.
But there's no cure for this idiocy, for these industry-bought, hyper-politicized myths and the people who believe - really believe - this nonsense.
Enjoy your ruined world, idiots. You deserve every scorched, polluted, destroyed acre.
I'm so glad Nick Griffin has come on your team not mine!
When you meet a global warming believer, start hitting its face until it leaves the area. If every crowd of a hundred did this, we could clean up so much of the evil...
Stop bitching, take responsibility and take action. Stop all donations to the political party(s) responsible for this fraud. Stop donations to all environmental groups which funded this Global Warming propaganda campaign with our money, especially The Environmental Defense Fund. Write your state and federal representatives demanding wall to wall investigations of government sponsored funding and coordination of this and related propaganda campaigns and demand indictments of those responsible. Write your state and federal Attorneys General demanding Al Gore and others conducting Global Warming/Climate Change racketeering and mail fraud operations be brought to justice, indicted, tried, convicted and jailed. That’s what I have done in response to this outrageous violation of the public trust. Think of the consequences if you do nothing!
John Small and all other believers in AGW please visit http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161 where you will find "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects within the frame of Physics" by Prof Gerhard Gerlich. This is the most complete demolition of the hypothesis that I have read. For an easier read try www.freenet-homepage.de/klima/error.htm where Dipl-Ing Hienz Thiene does a similar job in "Greenhouse gas hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics" Be prepared to have your delusions destroyed.
How is that the following petition signed by 31,486 vetted scientists, including 9,400 with PhDs, has been completely ignored?:
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth".
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Climate-Gate is but the tip of the iceberg!
The integrity of publicly-funded research has steadily eroded away since 1961.
Former President Dwight Eisenhower warned in 1961 of the dangers of an unholy alliance developing between the politicians that decide the amounts of public funs for research and the scientists who accept those funds to research issues of interest to the politicians.
1. Today NASA still pretends that Earth's heat source (the Sun) is a giant ball of Hydrogen (H) - despite all of the public funds spent to acquire data that shows the Sun is composed mostly of Iron (Fe), Oxygen (O), Silicon (Si), Nickel (Ni) and Sulfur (S) - just like Earth and ordinary meteorites.
2. Today DOE pretends that the Sun - Earth's heat source - is a giant fusion reactor despite all of the public funds DOE spent on neutrino measurements that dispute that obsolete idea.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo
Showing a picture of steam coming out of nuclear plant cooling towers and labeling it with CO2 emission caption is also a deceptive lie. Water vapor is a green house gas but it is not CO2.
why so surprised? Exactly the same thing is going on with the over-fishing issue. Boris Worm publishes a paper three years ago claiming "no fish by 2048". Result = 300 media articles. In 2009, he admits he was wrong. Result? One article in the Times (and that grudgingly). Similar perversions of the UN's official statistics by NGO's continue right, left and centre. But hey - it sells newspapers, right?
I think before we start playing around with the climate we ought to let it settle down after the last correction - we removed CFC's because of their effect on the ozone hole over the arctic . Unfortunately the size of the hole is still the same that it was 10 , 20 years ago . I think we need to wait until the size reduces right down before we look at altering the CO2 level - otherwise it will be one complexity on top of another complexity and we won't know what is having what effect .
Polar bears are real!
They have feelings and children and they need ice to survive.
Global warming warming will cause that ice to melt and they are not the best swimmers.
You people are heartless.
Did all you wing nuts also believe the cigarette companies for decades when they said that dumping tar in your lungs didn't pose a health risk? Are you people really stupid enough to believe that there's no side effect to increased and prolonged CO2 emissions?
Eric Hoffer's "true believers" will continue their allegiance to the religion of man-made global warming. These drooling, googely-eyed bobble-headed whiners are attached to "a cause bigger than themselves" --- and would suffer excruciating "emptiness" were they to undergo withdrawal from the "collective consciousness." Yeeeeeeeeeee haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!
This article is like a breath of fresh air. At last some common sense - I thought the age of reason was over.
Thanks so much to the many UK news outlets that are interested in actually disseminating news.
This story is yet another embarrassment for the quickly fading US media.
Ignoring the truth never makes it actually go away.
Did I see somewhere, that SIX, or so, ocean going liners pump out more of the stuff than all the cars in England?.
i have called on my elected officials to call for a federal investigation into this fraud. the us house passed the cap and trade bill based on this manipulated data. its time for some people to do some serious prison time.
Can we start drilling already?
Forget whether the emails are taken out of context, or incorrectly interpreted. The key point in this entire issue is that these "scientists" have consistently refused to release the raw data upon which their assumptions are drawn. This is a cardinal sin for scientists and can ONLY be explained if they're corrupt ba****rds who are trying to sell us snake oil. AGW is the Salem Witch hunt of our generation and is being perpetrated by greedy scum looking to advance their careers.
From what I have read, the global warming/climate change hoax got its start in a meeting between Clinton, then POTUS, Gore, then VP, and the head of BP oil.
Global warming/climate change is a ploy to "herd the sheep," (us) into a one world government. Read "The Planned Desturction of America,"(1990s) for more information.
Anyone who believes this hoax, especially after the release of the emails, is living in a fool's world!
After spending a goodly number of years associated with Academia, both as a undergraduate student, a grad student, adjunct faculty and finally as an administrator I have come to fully distrust the academic community. Besides being hopelessly leftist and suffering from integrity loss, this Climategate episode demonstrates clearly why academics, like politicians, should not be allowed to kick off their shoes and run through the public money vault.
These guys were up to one thing and one thing only, how to ensure that their money tree continued to bloom, and their greed was such that they wanted to ensure that they and they alone could harvest it.
Algore(tm) found his only money tree at about the same time that the liberal left discovered they could mine fort knox just as easily as east anglia could soak up the dollars. In short we have a casebook of greed, selfishness, dishonesty and secrecy that needs to be rooted out and the entire pot needs to be scoured before it will be usable again.
In the meantime, politicians on both sides of the pond had better wake up and smell the coffee on this one. The 2010 and 2012 elections are already heating up and I believe that we will see a lot of liars and crooks swept away as a result of this climate hoax.
So you pols can go to your conferences, smack your lips and roll your eyes in worship of the climate gods but there will be a day of reckoning ahead.
After spending a goodly number of years associated with Academia, both as a undergraduate student, a grad student, adjunct faculty and finally as an administrator I have come to fully distrust the academic community. Besides being hopelessly leftist and suffering from integrity loss, this Climategate episode demonstrates clearly why academics, like politicians, should not be allowed to kick off their shoes and run through the public money vault.
These guys were up to one thing and one thing only, how to ensure that their money tree continued to bloom, and their greed was such that they wanted to ensure that they and they alone could harvest it.
Algore(tm) found his only money tree at about the same time that the liberal left discovered they could mine fort knox just as easily as east anglia could soak up the dollars. In short we have a casebook of greed, selfishness, dishonesty and secrecy that needs to be rooted out and the entire pot needs to be scoured before it will be usable again.
In the meantime, politicians on both sides of the pond had better wake up and smell the coffee on this one. The 2010 and 2012 elections are already heating up and I believe that we will see a lot of liars and crooks swept away as a result of this climate hoax.
So you pols can go to your conferences, smack your lips and roll your eyes in worship of the climate gods but there will be a day of reckoning ahead.
bob on November 29, 2009 at 05:11 PM
"How many riots, how many people did we starve, a few years ago while the European Union and world forced so much of the worlds corn and food supply to instead be burned up to create biofuel to save the planet...based on non peer reviewed science?"
Another issue is that the advent of the increased energy from fossil fuel burning and latterly nuclear fission (along with steam power) combined with developments in the way to apply it, led to an increase in the world's population that is dependent for its existence on that energy. If the energy consumption were to be reduced then it follows that we could not support so many people. An analogy would be forcing people to use wooden ploughs instead of metal ones, leading to less crops, and thus only enough food for fewer people.
Thus enforcing reduced energy consumption would sentence millions or perhaps billions of people and their children to death. And this without real evidence of AGW. So exactly who would the criminals be?
So, they are saying that scientists make up stories to keep the government interested in giving them reaseach money?
Really?
This is very interesting. I wonder if there is any deception in the ever present argument that every discovery beyond earth will point to understanding the origin of mankind and that further study will lead to the discovery of other life in the universe.
The truth does not fear nor hide from scrutiny and skepticism.
Global warming has been a Leftist lie all along. The debate is now over. The liars need to go find something else to $tudy and lie about. Make it something more believable and less expensive to “fix” this time, eh boys. ;)
As an American, The Telegraph(Booker) has given me an early Christmas gift. The truth. Our media, except for Fox, Talk Radio and the many bloggers, will not cover this story. It would upset not only Gore but our Liar in Chief who will be off to Copenhagen to damage our free enterprise system. He already has done more destruction to it, that in my 70 years, I cannot remember a worse President except Carter who must have been separated at birth from Obama. What the real evil here is , is that the socialist pacifists round our globe have been in a conspiracy to stop the abundant resources in our nation( gas, oil, shale oil, coal and the safe building of nuclear plants) along with stopping other major industrial nations to use their resources and also stopping developing nations from using theirs. At the heart of this scandal is the evil foolishness of socialist liberalism. Prayerfully, in 2010, Americans will wake up and un-elect as many leftist Democrats in our nation. As Britain votes, prayerfully, it will un-elect as many leftists as it can. Again, thanks Mr. Booker.
Enjoy the debate.
I shall continue to observe it.
Seems that none of my posts on this issue are posted.
Every day we see new revelations about short-circuiting the scientific method by politicizing manipulated data. How did we allow junk scientists to refocus on global warming versus pollution control. We need to go back to pollution control which affects everyone's health versus listening to these political quasi scientific hacks led by AGore and Obama.
These were all highly educated scientists who have succumbed to the frailty of being human.
The question to be asked is who was able to convince these men and women to so cheat the system that upon being discovered they have now and for ever lost all credibility. what was placed before them so as to make them take this risk. Wealth, a seat at the alter of power or some other gem.
The other question all common men must now ask is what designs do the elite who are trying to manipulate this have in mind for our imprisonment,it surely isn't freedom. This was and always has been a long term design by a very few to gain control. Watch to see which one of the accused come up dead.
Science used for control by politicians must now and forever be looked upon suspiciously. Do not let this "teachable moment" be wasted on the vast majority of us who just want to be left alone and given the ability to forge our own life. Obviously there are some out in the world who hate that idea and are willing to corrupt anyone to meet their ends of domination.
Follow the money, but follow it at your peril!!!!!!!!
the answer will be found at the end of the dirty rainbow
Hang on a second AGW sceptics.
As yet UEA and CRU have not been proven to have done anything the remotest bit wrong - so please lets not see any lynch mobs. The facts need to be settled in a fair, reasoned and open minded way.
Let's all remember Mr Booker has been on a crusade to dismiss AGW science for a long time. How can we be sure this hacking isn't a last ditch attempt by AGW sceptics to create unbalanced mischief in advance of the Copenhagen talks?
The Chinese government evidently have "bought" the need to cut cabon emissions - scarcely bleeding heart greenies and I would be certain their scientists have been looking very hard and sceptically at the "western" evidence on AGW.
Either way the science needs to be reviewed impartially. The fact is that the vast majority posting on this site, seem from the way they express themselves so emotively (that includes Mr Booker) to know very very little about climate or any other - science (despite one or two who very evidently try to pretend that they do with the various "specialist" tags they give themselves).
Regrettably far too many seem to be vindictive towards a profession that has brought so many benefits to humanity - including medical sciences and technologies - all based on peer reviewed research.
Remember one of Mr Booker's previous campaigns was to try to pursuade everyone that asbestos was as safe as talc.
About 6 people per day in the UK are estimated as dying from asbestos induced mesothelioma.
Mr Booker I believe stopped his scientifically ignorant "asbestos = talc" campaign only after pressure medical groups, but perhaps some people have already died, or are terminally ill, following his "advice"?
Now that is a scandal.
I for one, as a genuine scientist with a couple of degrees in earth sciences (including geology) will be taking my time to assess the evidence around the CRU debate make an informed assessment accordingly.
To date from what I have read the evidence for AGW remains very strong - but I will keep an open mind.
Mr Booker's brand of conspiracy founded hysteria is to me a million miles away from genuine science.
a massive criminal conspiracy, perfectly suitable in the USA (where the crimes extend into that jurisdiction) -RICO laws
Our politically correct world cannot also afford politically correct science.
If anyone out there believes this is not a political situation just realize this one major point:
Consensus is a political concept and should never be applied to a scientific forum.
AL GORE INTERVIEWED ON CLIMATEGATE!!
Well. okay, maybe what it would be like IF he ever did. LOL We need a laugh right now! Go you You Tube, type in insanityisland and there it is. Enjoy!
Doug Hayden
Conservative Cartoonist
These people are criminals and should be treated as such. We are being swindled. Do people not get this?
Global warming comment
The beginning of the end for the cult of global warming! It is a first step back to sanity.
The high priests, be they Druids, Aztecs, or scientists, cannot predict or control the climate. All of these elites have sold this idea to enhance their own power. No amount of sacrifice of goats, virgins or SUVs will control anything. The idea that taxing animal flatulence will save the world is shear insanity.
It is an insanely egocentric notion that mankind can control his environment. The sane human response to climate change is to develop strategies that adapt to such massive uncontrollable events.
The answer to drowning is learning to swim not draining the oceans.
Gene Charles
"The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected"
Get the language right, James.
The data wasn't adjusted, it was ((cough, cough)) "quality controlled".
IS IT TRUE, THAT ONE ERUPTION FROM A VOLCANO CAN CAUSE MORE C02 EMISSION THAN ALL OF THE FACTORIES IN THE WORLD?
This is a great article and removes all doubt about the dirty methods of the climate change nut cases. All of these so-called scientists involved should be shipped off to the North Pole with summer clothing only since they say things should be melting away up there. What traitors they are to science.
This is a great article and removes all doubt about the dirty methods of the climate change nut cases. All of these so-called scientists involved should be shipped off to the North Pole with summer clothing only since they say things should be melting away up there. What traitors they are to science.
This is a great article and removes all doubt about the dirty methods of the climate change nut cases. All of these so-called scientists involved should be shipped off to the North Pole with summer clothing only since they say things should be melting away up there. What traitors they are to science.
BACK IN THE 1600 PEOPLE WERE BURN TO DEATH FOR THERE THINKING AND THE THINGS THEY DID. AL GORE AND HIS BUDDIES SHOULD BE BURNRD TO DEATH FOR TRYING TO RUIN THE AMERICAN CULTURE.
I ALWAYS NEW HE WAS A FOOL AND A LIAR. I ALSO NEVER BELIEVED IN GOLBAL WARMING CAUSED BY MAN.
THE EARTH IS ITS OWN WORST POLLUTER, JUST CONSIDER WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A VOLCAN ERUPTS!!!
"The Vanity of Humanity"
You're right, Allan.
All of Mankind could stand on the Isle of Wight.
OK, it would be a tight squeeze but it is, apparently, true.
Now look at photo of the Earth from space.
See if you can find the Isle of Wight.
I am surprised how many people don't believe the BBC regarding climate change and many other things. Only 40% believe climate change is man made.
Fox News in the US is much more up front. I can't understand why Sky News which is also owned by Murdoch is just the same as the BBC.
If only we had a news channel we could trust.
Please note that the ominous-looking gas being emitted from the power plant in the photo at the head of this article is WATER VAPOR.
But then, IPCC probably lists water as a pollutant.
snowmaneasy on November 28, 2009 at 09:47 PM
"Christopher,
An excellent article...I agree with you that this is certainly the scientific scandal of our times...so many stupid things are about to be done in the name of this farce....having just recovered from a massive financial crisis we are now slowly falling into another abyss of stupidity.... "
British Citizen, Scotland on November 28, 2009 at 10:21 PM
"Mr Booker, why won't the politicians in charge take any notice of our case? Is it because they need 'green taxes' so badly and they don't have an alternative scheme to save our economy?"
John M. Sours on November 29, 2009 at 06:15 AM
"Climategate points to the next layer that is cringing above the crooked scientists, i.e., the sources of the grant money that knowingly funded their phony research."
Is there someone with a grasp of economics who can predict the result of all the expensive carbon credits suddenly becoming worthless world wide? It seems to me that the left (American Democrats and European socialists) in particular have been stoking yet another diabolical bubble which must burst sooner or later. Wouldn't sooner be better than later?
Or have I picked up the wrong end of the stick?
This confirms what we who survived the New Ice Age of the 70s always suspected. The real shame is that by crying wolf, these high priests of the new religion have made people forget that it's still worth looking for cleaner energy, partly for simple motives of good housekeeping, partly so that we are less dependent on volatile and even hostile regimes.
This is only news to the public. Objective climate scientists, such as myself, have known that the 'warmists' have been fudging the results for some time. If it ever comes out in the wash, the world will find reality of warming falls somewhere in the middle... it's about half of what IPCC claims, and of that, part is man-made and part is natural. The overwhelming majority of data indicate this is true.
I realized the other night how similar the tactics of the global warming "panicists" are to the ones used by the Bush administration to promote the Iraq war with their WMD claims.
I remember countless talking heads saying that it was a certainty that Iraq had WMD.
The cherry picking of intelligence reports for any supporting claims and paying defectors if their stories supported WMDs with very little questioning of validity.
The demonizing of any doubters as "unpatriotic" or the famous "You're either with us or against us"
The way the mainstream press, at least in the US, became cheerleaders for the war.
I'm wondering if people will remember Al Gore in the way that Colin Powell is now remembered for his WMD speech before the UN?
Am I correct in thinking that the University of East Anglia is an erstwhile polytechnic?
It is inevitable that CRU shall be shut down sooner or later because research funds will be diverted elsewhere.
Ahhhh, see, the fault lies purely with the public here. The CRU spoke of their method, we heard them say that they "have an algorithm", when what they really meant was they "have an Al Gore-ism". I believe it goes something like "multiply by zero and add the desired result". It's *like* science, only, completely different.
Firstly Christopher Booker should be nominated for a Nobel Prize, of some sort for his detailed and tireless exposure of the duplicity of scientists and politicians in this whole fiasco. Others of far less stature have been nominated and won, so it should be a shoe in.
Secondly, how much more evidence do the politicians need before anyone of them has the balls to admit they were wrong and that Copenhagen is the last link in the chain to economic suicide for half the countries in the world. How can they not see it? How can not at least see that there are serious scientific doubts about MMGW?
It simply beggars belief that there is a number of thoughtful, intelligent leaders who cannot ignore the evidence, but are behaving like ostriches with their heads in the sand. Why are they so blind and so blinkered?
I am exasperated and also fearful at the real damage which is about to be perpetrated on me and all my fellow citizens.
This so-called scandal does not call into question the basic facts of climate change. In fact, it's really much ado about nothing, and most of the allegedly embarrassing emails are being heavily misinterpreted by people who were never meant to read them.
It's ridiculous to go on being a skeptic of a matter that is scientifically settled and then jump onto any and every conspiracy theory when it suits your own preconceived beliefs.
Used care salesman
Attorney
politician
snake oil salesman
President
green job zhar
Carnival duck pond operator
fortune teller
and now
scientist w/PHD
I've long had a philosophy- If a dolt like Al Gore is for something, then I am against it. The man is a fool, as are all the lemmings that follow him. The whole episode just proves that my cynical assessment of man's limited intellect is accurate. What a world.
The government industry is the single greatest threat to mankind. Only the government industry can "legally" engage in fraud and armed robbery. Enron, GE, Al Gore and others who are/were poised to make billions from government mandated seizure of freedom and property for cap-n-trade regulation are/were opportunistic profiteers who, like those who unite with socialists and communists to promote illegal immigration and wealth redistribution to those illegals to maximize their profits, unite with socialists and communists to help force environmental regulations resulting in another net loss to the country they are operating in, which they have no loyalty to.
Unscrupulous profiteers have a constant drive to fabricate new markets to profit from and they lobby government officials to force the fabricated market, which officials who love the new power created by new regulations, new taxes and new chances to buy votes and expand their role in government industry are all too happy to do. And, of course, socialists and communists love all freedom, money and power grabbing regulation.
Government industry in the hands of socialists and communists or in the hands of those responsive to opportunistic capitalists and/or socialists and communists is nothing but the ultimate organized crime syndicate misusing the force of municipal, county, state and federal law enforcement officers and armies to support their fraud and armed robbery.
The only good government is one in which politicians fear well-informed and well-armed citizens.
I confess to not reading all the comments, but did read most. So far I haven't seen anything about the Petition Project signed by over 31,000 American scientists, which petition says that manmade global warming is not true and that some global warming is good for the planet because it gives us more room for plants and animals to prosper, and thus, humans.
Global warmists have tried to deny this essential truth by saying there are names of famous people and dead people on the list.
The petition was, I believe, begun in 1998. Within that time people who signed have died and a look in any phone book will show you yourself in any number of places and famous people doing the most humble of jobs.
Take a look for yourselves. BTW, I do happen to know a couple of people (Ph.D.s)who have signed the petiton
http://www.petitionproject.com/
Courtesy of NucEngineer:
An easy explanation of what ClimateGate means,
ClimateGate emails and computer programs were taken from a main server at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. It is not known if this was a theft or the actions of a whistleblower, disgusted with what the lead scientists at CRU were doing.
ClimateGate exposed the cabal of 20 – 30 scientists (not just at CRU) that peer reviewed each others papers, strong-armed scientific journals to only print their views, and then sat on the IPCC panels as authors judging which published studies go into the IPCC final reports. This is why they always keep shouting “peer reviewed studies, peer reviewed studies, peer reviewed studies”. They owned the peer review process.
ClimateGate exposed that this small group has been adding positive corrections to the raw global temperature data, inflating the amount of published temperature rise over the last 50 years. Both CRU in the UK and NASA-GISS in the US add these biases. At CRU, the programmers did not even know what and why some corrections were added every month. Only since satellite monitoring for comparison have the amounts of biasing leveled off.
ClimateGate exposed the leaders of this cabal instructing each other to delete emails, data files, and data analysis programs ahead of already filed Freedom Of Information Act requests for raw data and computer codes, clearly a crime.
ClimateGate exposed the “trick” about the Hockey stick figure and other studies that performed proxy construction of past temperatures. After all, reconstruction of the last 1,000 years of climate is the first step in predicting the future with super computer programs as explained below:
Everything about all 21 super computer programs used by the IPCC to determine future global warming rely on best-determined past sensitivities to solar and volcanic effects (climate forcings) from the proxy temperature record.
1. The elimination of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age (the handle of the hockey stick) was necessary so that past solar effects could be minimized, thereby allowing almost all of the warming in the last 75 years to be blamed on Greenhouse Gasses. Raw data (like tree-ring thickness, radioisotope of mud layers in a lake bottom, ice core analyses, etc.) are used as a proxy for reconstruction of the temperature record for 1000 AD to 1960 AD. To ensure desired results, statistical manipulation of the raw data and selecting only supporting data, cherry-picking, was suspected and later proved.
2. The slope of long-term 10-year running average global temperature using thermometers from 1900 to present (the blade of the hockey stick) was maximized with the sloppy gridding code, Urban Heat Island effects, hiding the declines, and even fabricating data (documented in the leaked source code comments revealed with ClimateGate). This ensured that the Greenhouse Gas effect coefficient in all 21 of the super computers was maximized, and that maximizes the temperature result at year 2100 based on Greenhouse Gas increases. This thermometer data was used to replace the tree ring-divergence after 1960 and plot this over the climate history data of (1) above giving the false impression that the reconstructed 1000 AD to 1960 AD results are more accurate than they are.
3. Because tuning of the super computer programs uses back casting, the computer outputs could always replicate the 20th Century (by design); therefore it was assumed that the models had almost everything in them. Because of (1) and (2) above, nearly all climate change predicted by the models was due to CO2 and positive feedbacks and hardly any of the climate change was for other reasons like solar, understood or not.
4. Over the years, when better numbers for volcanic effects, black carbon, aerosols, land use, ocean and atmospheric multi-decadal cycles, etc. became available, it appears that CRU made revisions to refit the back cast, but could hardly understand what the code was doing due to previous correction factor fudging and outright fabricating, as documented in the released code as part of ClimateGate.
5. After the IPCC averages the 21 super computer outputs of future projected warming (anywhere from 2-degrees to 7-degrees, not very precise), that output is used to predict all manner of catastrophes. (Fires, floods, droughts, blizzards, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, insects, extinctions, diseases, civil wars, cats & dogs sleeping together, etc.)
So shut-up or be called a denier,
live the way we tell you to live,
pay more for everything, and
just send money for my research on the effects of global climate change on horseshoe crabs (which have been around for about 440 million years through all possible temperature ranges).
I hope that this makes the ClimateGate controversy easier to understand.
About 1000 years ago the Vikings colonized parts of Greenland that are not inhabited today. They named the area "Green" land. Later, cooling temperatures forced them to abandon the colonies.
This is natural.
Thank you for that well-written article.
It has been obvious to many of us for many years that "global warming" or "climate chamge" was all about money and power.
If the danger to our economy were not so serious, the whole thing would be quite humorous - the desperate corruption, using temperature data from sensors next to hot air sources on roof, broken equipment showing sea water where solid ice is present, and Al Gore and Michael Moore with all of their garbage.
If you have been fooled by the trouble-makers, now is the time to finally and forever reject all of their nonsense. Those of us who have known it was a scan all along will welcome you and rejoyce that you have joined us.
"At the moment you are like a bunch of estate agents debating quantum mechanics."
Check the thread again, San Quintin. The quality of the contributions is extraordinarily high.
It's all YOUR fault! When all your respective governments want to do is tax you. Many nations including the U.S. have fallen into economic ruin because there's not emough money to fund their governments' agendas. You, the people, won't simply allow for for the necessary additional taxes to be levied, for the sake of bailing your governments out of debt. NOOO! you want extra justification. So, YOU force your governments to create a lie like climategate in order for them to justify taxing you. Then when they get caught you chastize them for it. You act like a bunch of Jose's and Alejandro's. Stand up and be taxed like man, people!
The government industry is the single greatest threat to mankind. Only the government industry can "legally" engage in fraud and armed robbery. Enron, GE, Al Gore and others who are/were poised to make billions from government mandated seizure of freedom and property are/were opportunistic profiteers who, like those who unite with socialists and communists to promote illegal immigration and wealth redistribution to those illegals to maximize their profits, unite with socialists and communists to help force environmental regulations resulting in another net loss to the country they are operating in, which they have no loyalty to.
Profiteers have a constant drive to fabricate new markets to profit from and they lobby government officials to force the fabricated market, which officials who love the new power created by new regulations, new taxes and new chances to buy votes and expand their role in government industry are all too happy to do.
Government industry in the hands of socialists and communists or in the hands of those responsive to opportunistic capitalists and/or socialists and communists is nothing but the ultimate organized crime syndicate misusing the force of municipal, county, state and federal law enforcement officers and armies to support their fraud and armed robbery.
It's all YOUR fault! When all your respective governments want to do is tax you. Many nations including the U.S. have fallen into economic ruin because there's not emough money to fund their governments' agendas. You, the people, won't simply allow for for the necessary additional taxes to be levied, for the sake of bailing your governments out of debt. NOOO! you want extra justification. So, YOU force your governments to create a lie like climategate in order for them to justify taxing you. Then when they get caught you chastize them for it. You act like a bunch of Jose's and Alejandro's. Stand up and be taxed like man, people!
Bryan Abbott: You have it just right. We need a full disclosure of what our lying SOS politicians are invested in that they are also voting to fund. NPR is surely on it right now.
It may be an appropriate time to remind readers just what the scientific method is all about.
A researcher comes up with an idea, performs some tests or research to prove or disprove their new idea,
They then publish the results with full disclosure.
It matters not to the world of science if the results prove or disprove the idea, the world has acquired more knowledge and moves on.
The key phrase above is 'full disclosure'
This is to enable other scientists to duplicate your work thereby agreeing or disagreeing with your conclusions.
The climate researchers at the CRU of UEA appear to disagree with this most basic rule of science.
The alleged refusal to disclose data, deletion of data and the use of data that can not be released for commercial
reasons shows either a beginners understanding of research or something far more sinister.
So many rules of basic scientific research have been broken under the auspicious of the University of East Anglia that I fear future research funding must now be in question.
Yours
Steve Richards CEng
Susan from the USA is right, please keep this up because u.s. media is in the tank for Gore. It is an outrage. This is an extremely well written and cogent article. Thank you endlessly...
'their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.'
That is one of the money quotes, if you pardon the expression. That is why the Left is spinning themselves into pretzels defending this thing.
Ask yourself where we would be if this were studies on a food or a drug instead of climate change? Would that food or drug production be halted immediately? You bet it would! So should the 'science' of climate change! And the perpetrators should have their equipment seized and be imprisoned.
Incidentally - with this bogus science for bucks capers - global warming isn't the only game in town . I've come across various schemes . Probably the most classic one of recent is a scheme to put solar power generating satelites into geosynchronous orbits - keeps station with the Earth and , consequentially , turns with the Earth - Special BS Project dot com . They end up being capital transfer businesses , nothing more . There are even 'entrepreneurs' who specialise in this type of project - stage 1 investors probably benefit - ie. a pyramid scheme .
A sensible world's response to global warming should be, "CORK THE COWS AND PLANT TREES". Other than that it is just a ruse to elect politicians and make Gore and Palosi richer.
In the 70's, I never believed in the much bally-hooed New Ice Age, either. I also questioned many "facts" like "only 15/20 years of oil left; and DDT is killing songbirds.
I NEVER believed ANYTHING Algore ever said, especially when he formulated his global warming "theories." Liars lie, and honesty is not in them.
The Vanity of Humanity
Hi KimL at 4.42
It is nice to know that at least someone here wants to start thinking about science! The problem with detection and attribution over 100 Ma as you suggest is that the proxy record of the forcings and the responses over that time scale is pretty well non-existent (especially for what we are trying to achieve). So we need to see how the climate system has evolved with an understanding of the changes in the forcings. We are therefore not really able to go back before the LGM with any real certainty (and most reconstructions are late Holocene). If you want to discuss this with scientists (and not with the ignorant right-wing) then go to RealClimate and post questions there.
By the way, Dr Bratby I looked up your publication record on Google Scholar and couldn't find any! Tell me which papers you have published on climate science. What's the betting you haven't got any?
David Welch @ 8:43
"I can see that people who happily steal e-mails also think they should be freely provided with information that has cost millions of pounds to collect."
Any institution funded from public/taxpayer money is open to FOI requests, with certain, tough restrictions (privacy, etc.)
Any citizen is thus entitled by law to that information.
Your analogy with the mansion is silly.
I wonder if the useful idiots realise how much money the manufacturers and installers of wind turbines are making ?
And the research scientists who are basically students who never left school but are now in for a major 'earner' and fame ? Gore and his ilk are making them front-men and women for commercial organisations which are making billions from this.
I can only presume that government and EU motives for promoting this crap is a combination of relief that they have spotted a fnancial revenue stream to solve the bank crisis and that it gives them carte blanche to 'socialise' us all still further.
I've known for years now these guys were all lying. I studied climatology almost 30 years ago when I was in college, so I knew where to go to find information, and how to determine the value of their work.
But I'm just a lone engineer and they're 'famous scientists' so I got a lot of abuse. Even cost me a few friendships.
Look, whenever a scientist will not show you his/her work, no matter how famous, they are LYING! And you would be shocked to find out just how many will do it for money and power. Science pays squat, and there is rarely any fame attached to it. Scientists, like actors, will do anything for fame, forture, and to get laid.
Matt, I am a lawyer in the US of thirty years with an engineering degree....I don't have a lock on logic, but this global warming email disclosure should be one of the biggest stories of the last century, bigger than the Pentagon Papers or Watergate or any other...because the entire world was being manipulated into action based on the premise that the world might come to an end....
Trillions are to be spent that is all based on science that was never vetted as promised, never peer reviewed at any reasonable degree as promised, let alone what should have been the highest degree of peer review ever on something this important to the future of the world...based on manipulated data...based on purposely withholding for years what the science was based on...based on the trust that scientists were given and abused while accusing others of being biased.......based on scientists clearly playing politics at the highest levels, even breaking the law to keep any truth about what the populace believe could be the end of the world....
It means that fifteen years of NON PEER reviewed science is meaningless....nothing said can be trusted.
Everything about GW, or AGW...is without any adequate peer reviewed process....Any court would throw this case out on its tail when the experts at the highest levels were shown to have manipulated data of ANY kind, to have hidden data from the other side, to have attempted to keep the other side from testifying....
How many riots, how many people did we starve, a few years ago while the European Union and world forced so much of the worlds corn and food supply to instead be burned up to create biofuel to save the planet...based on non peer reviewed science?
All the data is now suspect... even if they release what they have...
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
This is the modern-day equivalent of the Piltdown Man.
Just as that "missing link" was a hoax, these "scientists" will be forever remembered as the hucksters and fraudsters behind the phony linkage between CO2 and global warming.
Funny how the entire leftwing agenda -- particularly in the US -- is a house of cards built on lies and fraud. And Barack Obama is the biggest hoaxer of them all -- forcing an agenda down the throats of the American public based upon absolute lies -- lies about his hapless Marxist economic plan (that it will create jobs, improve the economy and slow the recession), lies about his Marxist health care scam (lies that it will improve care, reduce the deficit, insure more people), and lies about the environment.
Leftists are nothing but used car salemen con men.
I see the BBC (with great relief) reports on the front page about Tiger Woods delay in answering questions. CRU's delay in answering questions is 5 clicks away.
Lesson? Never trust a "scientist" that says discussion is over, the "science is settled."
Can it happen again? YES! Why? Because the media allowed/enabled/encouraged the scam. They have not been taken to task.
Didn't anyone find it strange along the way that Harvard, MIT and CalTech did not support the findings of the Left Wing Climate pseudo-science folk? And that NuLabour was trailing around behind a drunk, trustafarian, fraud named Al Gore?
Enjoyed the read, shessh!!! I'll be stopping by the telegraph more often ~Thank you
What we need to understand here is the size of the fiscal prize for those involved in the MMGW lobby and linked to supposed remedial actions (*plant a tree in Timbuktu*| to assuage your gas guzzling Neasden conscience is just one example) - that is what is driving the spurious case - aided and abetted by bankrupt politicians who love the idea of green taxes which the voter is made to feel guilty at not wishing to support.
"san quintin" is breathtakingly ignorant. Anyone who has been even remotely associated with academia - especially graduate schools in science - knows of the phoniness and dishonesty involved in what is laughingly called 'research'. Most actual Ph.D. theses, much like precedent-driven legal 'decisions', are mere collections of previously derived conclusions, orchestrated to support some 'new' idea - itself almost invariably useless and irrelevant.
Now we have a public display of the total dishonesty of the scientific 'establishment' (read: tax dollar thieves). A close look at military-industrial practices - from the inside - reveals the same thing.
Guess what sansqeemish? So called scientific 'research' is driven by greed and tax dollars, and is just as dishonest as any other 'business'. And this time it has been co-opted by the world socialist movement, aka 'progressives', to create a crisis leading to world socialism. Many, including algore, have even publicly admitted that that is their goal.
One hopes strongly for the near-term impeachment of o-bah-mah and his gang of well-heeled goons.
Even today some writing here reflect the usual alarmist Communist-style " Beyond Argument" line and rubbish from those with "vested interests" - ie PAID by the global warming industry - The Met has alot to answer for, as has much of the BBC output which blatantly regards MMGW as a given.
"Deniers" as some call those who question MMGW, should more aptly be put in the category of those who refuse to acknowledge that climate does indeed change, has always changed, and will continue to change ... WITHOUT Man's help.
Climate does indeed change, and has done, over the life of Earth.
To believe that Man can alter this fact, whether negatively or positively, suggests extreme naivety or incredible pomposity.
Thank goodness the majority of real scientists ( not PAID with million pound grants to espouse the Man-made global warming myth) have the intelligence and ability to stand up to the mindless politicians, the Left and people with the myopic, brainwashed outlook of the under-educated, who seem to desperately need their "religion" of MMGW belief
(Do these people not realise that climate has always changed, despite Man, and that not so very long ago ( very recently, geologically) we were actually joined to the Continent and Ireland by land - yes,you could walk to France!...
...But,the Earth changes, as ever, and that link became flooded (now the North Sea and start of the English channel, Irish sea etc.), so we may well find landscapes and seascapes changing, DESPITE MAN!)
Many are clearly part of the paid-up MMGW bandwagon who do not even consider that the UN and their "science" might be completely wrong - this is their new "Religion".
Concerning the global warming propaganda,and the new "religion" that brooks no argument, David Bellamy wrote in The Times 22.10.07 ...
"I am happy to be branded a heretic because throughout history heretics have stood up against dogma based on the bigotry of vested interests.
"But I don't like being smeared as a denier because deniers don't believe in facts.
"The truth is that there are no facts that link the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide with imminent catastrophic global warming.
"Instead of facts, the advocates of man-made climate change trade in future scenarios based on complex and often unreliable computer models..."
Many scientists ( who have integrity and do not mind risking their pensions and income, geologists and historians dispute the causes of climate change - ( remember, climate has ALWAYS CHANGED, witness the growing of vines all over England pre 12th Century, in Roman times and before, the farming and occupation of now inhospitable areas such as Dartmoor, Bodmin moor etc ), yet the UN and those scientists PAID by the Global Warming industry will not heed any argument, to the extent that some people are called "deniers" by those of feeble mind or Left-Wing persuasion, as demonstrated by many in the media, here and politics today.
The Sun effects climate change - Man, as Canute took pains to demonstrate, is puny against Nature.
Left-Wing doom-mongers seem to revel in the possibility of MMGW, and to want it to be true.
The global warming alarmists, the UN and the IPCC, and many politicians have wallowed in the possibility of MMGW, and, like Lemmings have all been quick to blame virtually any "weather" on climate change...
...and now forge ahead with the propaganda and the " BEYOND ARGUMENT" line so beloved of dictators and Communists.
"Green" taxes and the IPCC could have a far greater impact on people and the current economic "climate" than the much maligned CO2 (which is far less of a pollutant than Methane, released into the atmosphere by the World's cows causing six times as much pollution as cars do).
Already we can see the effects on food, and electricity prices caused by a lack of nuclear generation and massive "green" costs which we are all now paying for, in the vain, misguided and deluded belief that we are causing climate to change.
Utter, alarmist bilge, peddled by those who seem to be becoming ever-more alarmist and almost vicious with completely over-stated, ridiculous figures and scenarios- as evidenced so clearly by the UEA emails.
@ Mike Donald
I think we are seeing the pre-Copehagen publicity program still running on autopilot and most of those behind it (read the small print in the article and it amounts to 26 IPCC people of whom we can guess the names of a few) are too busy with climategate revelations threatening their careers to switch it into manual and then to off.
How do you spell HOAX? A L G O R E and P H I L I P J O N E S! This is all about fleecing the US tax payer and lining the pockets of these clowns, these two bit dictators! Climategate has exposed these charlatans for what they are - frauds! In light of this scandal, Obama is going to continue with his plans to attend this joke, called a meeting, in Copenhagen. This shows us who Obama really is - a dictator in sheep's clothing! He has no regard for the US - he only cares about his own power! A consensus of opinion of scientists is not science boys and girls. This is all about a few powerful folks in the world who want to control every aspect of our lives and steal all of our financial resources so that we are dependent on them. To confirm how bogus the entire climate change argument really is, check out the caption under the picture at the beginning of this article, "CO2 emissions will be on top of the agenda at the Copenhagen summit in December..." Ummmmmmm, the last time I looked, I believe every living person on the planet exhales CO2....am I wrong? So if every person exhales CO2, I guess we need to connect every person with a GPS device to measure the amount they exhale so that they are taxed accordingly. And since athletes exhale harder when competing and since they earn more money than anyone else, they need to be taxed more for their carbon emissions! Or during sex, since there is heavy breathing for at least 5 - 30 minutes (depending on the circumstances and how good one is), there has to be a way to measure the CO2 being exhaled!!!!! At least if we are going to be screwed by the likes of Al Gore and Philip Jones, we need to enjoy it! Have I made somewhat of a point? There is no way mankind can alter the climate! The whole thing is a joke!
The scandal is how anyone could believe any of this "global warming" bull in the first place. Those of us you labeled "skeptics" have been warning you *dupes* for the longest time. Same thing we tried to do with Odumbo, yet stupid people never learn.
These wicked, corrupt 'scientists' will suffer the same punishment as all those Marxist Lecturers caught secretly passing personal details of generations of 'right-wing' students to the murdering KGB/Stazi --off the Vice-Chancellor's Winterval Card list for a year!
Hang-em all for treason! (after a fair trial)
If Tony Blair were still Prime Minister we would be bombing the oceans by now - because the oceans are harbouring vast quantities of CO2 which is both terrorist and WMD rolled into one. Tony wouldn't be hanging around waiting for peer-reviewed policy advice or trooping off with other leaders to form a consensus in Copenhagen. No... Just send the bombers in and tell the public anything [or nothing[ later, hey Tone?
Seriously, many thanks for your reporting of this important issue Christopher. My first posting. Much appreciated.
No investagative journalists tackling this in the MSM? Politicians blithely ignoring Climategate? The BBC still hasn't heard of it?
AGW is a palpable lie but the ruling elite intends to shaft us anyway. WE must clamour until our voice is heard, both warmists and sceptics - after all we all want the truth. Or do we?
Graham,
Great question, it is all about the incentive isn't it?
I wonder who paid the hacker to steal the data and who is behind that. Those guys are usually not too political...
"Remember the hole in the ozone layer, only global action to ban CFC's cured that problem."
Wow, somebody loves their kool aid. Now for reality....they actually discovered that the ozone "hole" is a naturally occurring event. It's not a problem to be cured, and it's still there today, coming and going as nature dictates....the same way it has for thousands of years. We didn't cure anything, lol, we wasted billions on a non-issue....much like global warming.
I would like to know why journalists and newspapars have fanned the flames of 'global warming' and more often than not supported scientists views without the slightest amount of investigation being done.
Journalists are SUPPOSED to be INVESTIGATORS not repeaters of other peoples opinion.
Why have scientists got away with global warming hogwash for so long - because we do not have investigatory journalist worth a pinch of salt.
Both professions have let themselves down.
And they want me to BUY a newspaper so that they can continue with their lazy jobs. Never!
You guys are so funny.
You all forget so quickly who really was making well-documented efforts to supress global warming science for the last 8 years.
I guess the only way you guys are going to accept climate change is when it's manifestations are so apparent that it is literally impossible to deny it any longer. When major coastal cities become pressured by rising sea levels, desertification spreads through broad swaths of the American Southwest and the Mediterranean, and some of our treasured natural landscapes are virtually unrecognizable to what we experience today. Any probably then, you'll still find a way to not blame it on mankind.
It's not a media hoax. It's not a couple of professors in dark rooms tweaking their data. It's chemistry & physics. That's all that's to the great global warming conspiracy.
Jail time for these holier than thou liars.
san quintin : you will need to provide me with links to the figures . And , I must point out , I am an engineer so I have the maths and the physics but other than an effective BS meter I would need to do research on the causes . This really needs a good comment site where the figures can be crunched by us - ie. a group effort - I just don't have the unpaid time available to be able to spend on it full time .
A climatic analysis first stage can be done like this :-
1) work out the global temperature at set geographical positions over the long term - we are talking 10's of millions of years . There would be a lot of scientific argument on the accuracy of these figures . I think we would have to see all the arguments before we proceeded further .
2) ensure that they provide represental figures - ie. they have to take into account things like continental movement . Again more scientific argument . I think we would have to see all the arguments before we proceeded further .
3) now cycles - all that needs to be done is to look at the cycles - ie. the cycles have to be extracted . Start off with a basic sine wave based cycle - so , as such , apply a Fourier analysis to the global temperature figures .
4) having broken down the global temperature figures into component sine waves then relate the individual sine waves to corresponding measured phenomena . A statistical analysis will show correlation .
I can certainly do the engineering analysis although I don't have any maths packages to make the work easy .
Once the phenomena and the temperature changes are correlated a corresponding prediction can be made - with a certain degree of certainity . However , going on my reading of the subject it has to be a very long term analysis in order to have any validity - probably 100M years . Then there are issues such as the aging of the Earth - a younger Earth will probably have more volcanic activity effecting the temperature . Then there is the age of the Solar System - meterite activity . Then there is the movement of the Earth around all it's axis , and it's movement through the Solar System and the Galaxy . Then there are natural cycles operating on the Earth - El Nino , Gulf Stream etc. - these would have short and long term cycles . Then there is all the non human nature - eg. algae , farting cows etc. . All will effect the temperature and will have to be quanitified . So it is not a simple task . However my gut feeling , and it is an educated gut , is that human activity probably contributes about 0.08% to global warming .
"In the face of overwhelming evidence for or against, people will still believe whatever they want."
This quote has fit the Al Gore fanbois for years. Now they might just have to justify their position.
What does the photo have to do with the story? CO2 is colorless.
A United Nations group that promotes abortion has released some controversial recommendations concerning “global warming.”
According to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), birth control and access to family-planning facilities can be a valuable weapon in the fight against supposed “climate change.” The UNFPA sites overpopulation as one of the factors in the earth’s “capacity to adjust” to climate change.
In an article published on GMANews.tv, a representative from the Philippines notes that climate change could affect women the worst, as women in that country might be driven into the sex trade as climate change reduces income from farming and fishing. The Fund uses this scenario to justify its call for the distribution of birth control and its call to slow population growth.
First of all, anyone with an ounce of common sense knew this global warming nonsense was bogus well before "Climategate".
Second, maybe if media outlets did legitimate research on this issue instead of just going along with the cause, it could have been nipped in the bud years ago. Heck, even this critical editorial continues to push the scam. How? By posting a picture of a factory emitting steam with a caption that implies it is actually CO2 we see being released.
As bad as these lying climate scientists are, you folks in the media share a lot of the blame, and are nearly as bad as they are.
The climate change swindle is all about the legistating of billionaires, such as Al Gore who should have his backside hauled before the World Court for financial terrorism; along with all of his clique of insider supporters such as James Hanson and company. There is a giant money trail on all of this, with all of the usual suspects being in on it, such as Al Gore, Goldman Sachs, George Soros....etc. The climate models are garbage, and are being manipulated by liars and con artists, in the so called academic and media circles.
thefutureisvegan on November 29, 2009 at 10:47 AM
"Oh yeah and you can leave out the highly localised "Medieval Warm Period" LOL too. "
Only to the uninformed. Here is just one example.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_indopacific.php
The authors of such research that ranges right across the world with recent papers coming from New Zealand and the pacific coast of South America do ask the troubling question as to why the "team" do not see the MWP...
Another interesting paper comes my way. The MSM is keen on telling us that a warming climate will result in increased heat related deaths. This study examined whether temperature related death rate spikes are followed by a dip or not. It found that where the deaths are heat related the subsequent weeks have a drop in death rates for those conditions said to be exacerbated by Heat.
In cold periods following a spike there is no dip. The conclusion of this paper being that cold conditions increase death rates and shorten life span significantly whilst warm conditions only by a matter of weeks.
The study also notes that retired people often move to warmer climes and this extends life span and is said by the study to account for 3% to 7% gains in longevity in the US.
Deschenes, O. and Moretti, E. 2009. Extreme weather events, mortality, and migration. The Review of Economics and Statistics 91:659-681.
2nd
Come on. Why the photo of steam from cooling towers. Those towers aren't producing any Carbon Dioxide. The photos sure make it look like CO2 is such a threat.
Even Scientists have figured out that if they exaggerate claims and use phony data, they can make more money and even stand the chance of becoming incredibly wealthy by using stealthy investments that are directly effected by the information they are in charge of disseminating to the media and general public. It's almost as lucrative as being a Politician. By the way... has Obama caught Osama yet?
As an American whom often listens to BBC radio and National Public Radio I must say I have heard the endless chatter of the pro climate nazi types incessantly. Their junk science has come home to roost finally. If this were a class of "educated" opposition to their religion as they see it they would be advocating nothing short of public lynchings for their intelligentsia adversaries. The shoe is on the other foot and with both their feet in the climate cookie jar they can't wiggle out fast enough and for those blind in faith they continue to spew their dogma as though gospel.It's time for this house of corrupt cards to come down.
Those are cooling towers in the photo, so that is steam coming out. So thw whole wind-farm/CO2 irony doesnt work.
Good article though!!!
Keep up the great work Mr.Booker.
Even today some writing here reflect the usual alarmist Communist-style " Beyond Argument" line and rubbish from those with "vested interests" - ie PAID by the global warming industry - The Met Office has a lot to answer for, as has much of the BBC output which blatantly regards MMGW as a given.( Note Andrew Marr's programme this morning where all three journalists didn't even blink when discussing just "how important" the Copenhagen conference would be to "save" Mankind!
"Deniers" as some call those who question MMGW, should more aptly be put in the category of those who refuse to acknowledge that climate does indeed change, has always changed, and will continue to change ... WITHOUT Man's help.
Climate does indeed change, and has done, over the life of Earth.
To believe that Man can alter this fact, whether negatively or positively, suggests extreme naivety or incredible pomposity.
Thank goodness the majority of real scientists ( not PAID with million pound grants to espouse the Man-made global warming myth) have the intelligence and ability to stand up to the mindless politicians, the Left and people with the myopic, brainwashed outlook of the under-educated, who seem to desperately need their "religion" of MMGW belief.
(Do these people not realise that climate has always changed, despite Man, and that not so very long ago ( very recently, geologically) we were actually joined to the Continent and Ireland by land - yes,you could walk to France!...
...But,the Earth changes, as ever, and that link became flooded (now the North Sea and start of the English channel, Irish sea etc.), so we may well find landscapes and seascapes changing, DESPITE MAN!)
Many are clearly part of the paid-up MMGW bandwagon who do not even consider that the UN and their "science" might be completely wrong - this is their new "Religion".
Concerning the global warming propaganda,and the new "religion" that brooks no argument, David Bellamy wrote in The Times 22.10.07 ...
"I am happy to be branded a heretic because throughout history heretics have stood up against dogma based on the bigotry of vested interests.
"But I don't like being smeared as a denier because deniers don't believe in facts.
"The truth is that there are no facts that link the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide with imminent catastrophic global warming.
"Instead of facts, the advocates of man-made climate change trade in future scenarios based on complex and often unreliable computer models..."
Many scientists ( who have integrity and do not mind risking their pensions and income, geologists and historians, dispute the causes of climate change - ( remember, climate has ALWAYS CHANGED, witness the growing of vines all over England pre 12th Century, in Roman times and before, the farming and occupation of now inhospitable areas such as Dartmoor, Bodmin moor etc ), yet the UN and those scientists PAID by the Global Warming industry will not heed any argument, to the extent that some people are called "deniers" by those of feeble mind or Left-Wing persuasion, as demonstrated by many in the media, here and politics today.
The Sun effects climate change - Man, as Canute took pains to demonstrate, is puny against Nature.
Left-Wing doom-mongers seem to revel in the possibility of MMGW, and to want it to be true.
The global warming alarmists, the UN and the IPCC, and many politicians have wallowed in the possibility of MMGW, and, like Lemmings have all been quick to blame virtually any "weather" on climate change...
...and now forge ahead with the propaganda and the " BEYOND ARGUMENT" line so beloved of dictators and Communists.
"Green" taxes and the IPCC could have a far greater impact on people and the current economic "climate" than the much maligned CO2 (which is far less of a pollutant than Methane, released into the atmosphere by the World's cows causing six times as much pollution as cars do).
Already we can see the effects on food, and electricity prices caused by a lack of nuclear generation and massive "green" costs which we are all now paying for, in the vain, misguided and deluded belief that we are causing climate to change.
Utter, alarmist bilge, peddled by those who seem to be becoming ever-more alarmist and almost vicious with completely over-stated, ridiculous figures and scenarios- as evidenced so clearly by the UEA emails.
It seems that some like David Welch and others writing herein lack the healthy dose of skepticism that keep one from being taken in by every greedy psuedo-scientist looking for a gov't. research grant. Doesn't anyone but me remember the Chicken Little scientists predicting our coming ice age back in the 70s? I've been predicting with frustration the bursting of the global warming bubble for years. No, I am not a Phd but I have the common sense to do some rudimentary research of my own and see that the earth's climate has these warming and cooling cycles about every 1500 years. This is true and provable by many sundry methods. You "warmers" obviously have access to the web, do some reading, educate yourself beyond what the PC talking heads tell you to believe.
Call of Copenhagen. We will just hear more lies.
san quintin's comments @ 3:02 show us the true problem: NEVER question a scientist because they have a PhD and have written articles in a professional journal. When so-called scientist produce so-called research that supports the government reaching into my pocket, I have the absolute right to question them and anyone else. The news about the emails is the exact reason why we should. A PhD doesn't mean your are beyond question. Remember, a PhD is like an MD, but you can't help anyone...
When God creates something out of nothing it is what it is.When men create something out of nothing it's just another lie. If this isn't guillotine stuff, I hope it is at least vigorous voter rejection of the politicians who championed this garbage for political advantage. They fully intended to enslave us with these lies. If a tsunami of rage does not manifest in 2010, we truly do live in the servile state. And the contemptible mudstream media that told us these scientists could be trusted, should never be trusted about anything. And how amusing is Obama's attempt going to be to cope with these revelations when he intones his sonorous concatenation of vanities to open the Copenhagen crap-fest? Can't wait.
When I am confronted by differing views that are subjective in nature I look to follow the money...This scandal is about jobs/careers, book sales and future book deals as well as professional prestige. The money trail becomes easy to follow.
The real shame to this climate issue is that in a world of ever increasing complexities the one group we should be able to trust is our scientific community and we have been betrayed.
Terry Hopping
Sacramento CA/USA
The recent warming is being caused by golf courses. It is no coincidence that the earth started warming at about the same time that golf courses started springing up all over the world. Many use Kentucky Blue Grass which requires a lot of water. All that watering has increased the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and we all know that it has a far greater impact on global warming than CO2.
For proof, I offer my four cousins who all moved out of the Denver, Colorado area. One reason: the humidity has increased from very dry to just dry. Since the golf courses in the Denver area are open all year around, a surprising fact to most people outside of Colorado, that further contribute to golf course caused global warming.
Somebody needs to tour all the famous golf courses in the word and check out the grass. Where do I apply for an AGW research grant?
Good! Now we can try to have a fair and two sided debate instead of a political steamroll.
San Quentin said, "At the moment you are like a bunch of estate agents debating quantum mechanics."
Well San Quentin, even if we are a bunch of estate agents debating quantum mechanics, that doesn't mean we're wrong not to trust the particle physicists caught faking their data. Expertise isn't the issue here.. it's honesty.
Morvan
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/
It's also worse than the IPCC reports:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/25/copenhagen-diagnosis-ipcc-science
Remember the IPCC reports are a general agreement from climatologists and governments (every word, table and graph) and hence conservative in their opinions.
Morvan please google for this yourself please.
Anyone with a modicum of common sense and a small amount of scientific education, knows that man-made global warming is a hoax without looking at any data. Those of us with engineering degrees who have read even a smidgen of the released emails, understand exactly what these so-called scientists were doing and it has nothing to do with science or engineering. This type of fitting of the data to the desired conclusion would never be tolerated by integrated circuit manufacturers because it would exposed quickly and financially. Alas, Al Gore is making millions if not billions off this hoax and he should probably be put in jail for a hoax he surely must know is pure snake oil. I want to know Mr. Al Gore how many campfires it took man to melt the glacier that used to cover the hill where my house now sits?
Those are cooling towers in that picture; not CO2 pollution. See, even you have been fooled by the AGW hype!
Great report, but what is missing is the most important part of this massive criminal swindle. The willingness of the so called main stream media, to go along with and proactively support people like the ones mentioned in this article. The real shame is on the main stream media, as the are the last barrier to the public in general being lied to and hosed by these pathetic, uncontionable, politically motivated losers. The vast majority of the main stream media became willing participants in all of this shamless swindle, because of their political beliefs, goals and complete lack of ethics.
A good portion of the population didn't buy into the global warming debate in the first place,they were the ones that let common sense prevail, which is sadly lacking today by the majority.
Now when will the long arduous process of deprogramming the masses begin.
Who are the heros who hacked into East Anglia's CRU? Why did they do this? In the end, if we all can batter the truth into this debate, how much will we owe these people? At the very least, we must prevent them from being prosecuted for invasion of privacy or anything else. These people are the investigative journalists of the Third Millenium...and they may be the only true jounalists left!!!
Wow, just take a closer look at the picture leading this article and its description "CO2 emissions...".
Surprise, surprise, these are cooling tower and the "smoke" is plain old STEAM. No CO2 emissions.
So much for this fraudulant Copenhagen Summit
At least we have consensus now -- these "scientists" are cheating, lying, scum.
I've been following this narrative for 2+ years and seeing the stonewalling out of the Team, so was not at all shocked by the e-mail releases. It simply confirmed my suspicions on their own words.
More importantly to me, this has to raise the question are how reliable are the historical temperature records. The US Historical Climate records (USHCN), now New Zealand and Australia show raw temp records not increasing. Only after they adjust the temps do the increases come in. If the temp increases which have cause such alarm are created only after artificial adjustments, wouldn't science look more carefully at the adjustment methods?
Of course, how could we question the integrity of Jones and James Hansen, the owners of the records. Oh, that's right...
Study by New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
There have been strident claims that New Zealand is warming. The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), among other organisations and scientists, allege that, along with the rest of the world, we have been heating up for over 100 years.
But now, a simple check of publicly-available information proves these claims wrong. In fact, New Zealand’s temperature has been remarkably stable for a century and a half. So what’s going on?
New Zealand’s National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA) is responsible for New Zealand’s National Climate Database. This database, available online, holds all New Zealand’s climate data, including temperature readings, since the 1850s. Anybody can go and get the data for free.
Full report at :
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/are_we_feeling_warmer_yet/
Nice picture, Telegraph. Descriptions infers that CO2 emissions are represented but methinks those are cooling towers and that is steam (aka water vapor) pouring out. Perhaps you were going for subtle irony.
We're now talking about what we've known all along. That Scientists in their white coats are the Pharisees, but they can be white washed sepulchres. I wonder what we would find in the emails of those Scientists who defend the religion of Evolution?
Too many burnt boats at the BBC, and too much arrogance. We really need to stop paying for this propaganda arm of the lib/left.
What with this scam and the Swine Flu scam will we ever believe scientists again?
having worked for seven years in science, I left after discovering the majority of the published data couldn't be replicated in any lab AND the PI was publishing data that was either incorrect, but supported his hypothesis, or correct but not replicable even by the same people doing the original experiments.
Then the big one; The sale of the rights to a cancer "cure" which not only couldn't be replicated by the purchaser but couldn't be replicated by the PI when asked to do so in the lab for the purchaser. Odd how the sale happened and then replication couldn't happen. Stupid purchaser that is for sure. There are thousands of stories like this, each researcher has them but no one will speak out about it. Why? Because the government is involved in supporting the research and therefore it is not about the science, it is about the money. What real scientist would ever start a paper purportedly discussing a hypothesis with "Such and such is true, therefore" when such and such has not been shown to be true but they say it is because they believe it like a religion. The only way to get science back to being true science is to remove the government money. Peer review is a joke. If I review a grant for Prof. A and he reviews them for Prof. B, I will approve Prof. A so he will review Prof. B and Prof. B will review mine (simplistic scenario but you get the gist of it). That is how it works and ever person involved knows it.
When God creates something out of nothing it is what it is.When men create something out of nothing it's just another lie. If this isn't guillotine stuff, I hope it is at least vigorous voter rejection of the politicians who championed this garbage for political advantage. They fully intended to enslave us with these lies. If a tsunami of rage does not manifest in 2010, we truly do live in the servile state. And the contemptible mudstream media that told us these scientists could be trusted, should never be trusted about anything. And how amusing is Obama's attempt going to be to cope with these revelations when he intones his sonorous concatenation of vanities to open the Copenhagen crap-fest? Can't wait.
Hi Kim L. The raw data, codes, reanalysis data ete etc are all available on the internet. If you think that the earth is cooling (another wrong sceptic view) then you can do the calculations yourself. You could also develop and run your own climate model, and develop your own attribution assessments. If you come to different conclusions than us, then we can discuss this and debate the pros and cons. That's how we do science. It's telling that all models (from simple energy balance models to ESMs) show that increasing atmospeheric C02 results in a warming trend.
ImranCan: Einstein was a physicist whilst he worked in a patents office. So your example doesn't make any sense. I also don't rely on 'authority' as I am one.
Here's some good news.
Climate Cover Up Top Selling Media Studies Book in America
http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-cover-top-selling-media-studies-book-america
And if you want to learn something about climatology please download these lectures:-
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/an-offering/
There is no such thing as a stable climate. Climate has always changed and will continue to do whether man interferes with it or not. Even if the climate is warming is increased CO2 the cause or the result. As a Greenhouse gas CO2 pales into insignificance compared with water vapour which has a far greater greenhouse effect - except the "approved scientists" conveniently forget to mention this. The atmospheric content of water vapour varies hugely the whole time so the idea that CO2 can have any significant impact in a widely varying water vapour atmosphere is completely ludicrous.
Just ask a climatologist who isn't chasing climate change research funding. The latter of course is the real reason for so called "man induced" climate change.
The photo heading this story is misleading and inflammatory - and is typical of the misunderstandings about fossil-fueled power generation. The 'smoke' shown is actually just clean water condensate caused when boiler-generated steam is chilled in the cooling towers. This is not in any way representative of CO2 pollution. In fact, the condensate is mostly visible in cold weather, just like the 'smoke' you breathe out on a cold, winter day.
Enlightened San Quentin fails to understand that the criticism on these Ph.D. is beyond their actual hypotheses, but the way that they are tested. This, San Quentin, are failures by these climate scientists in their implementation of the scientific method. You don't need a PhD to understand that, just a little bit of philosophy of science and a little bit of ethics. You don't have to be a PhD in climate science to understand that if you manipulate the data (real and simulated) to fit your hypotheses, then your science is garbage.
Imagine that!! Corrupt bastards in collusion with other corrupt bastards!!
Billions (if not, trillions) of dollars spent to line the pockets of the uber-corrupt like Al Gore and Bill Clinton.
Doubtlessly, any taxes extracted from me will be sent to Third-World venal clods like Hugo Chavez to ensure that they are fat and happy and the supermarket shelves in places like Venezuela stay empty.
Global warming is nothing more than a SCAM and a MONEY-GRAB!!
The facts are the facts. They were caught cooking the data and trying to cover it up. Its growing increasingly hysterical to see liberals losing their collective minds regarding this massive scandal. The liberal denial about what happened is beyond description. They resort to their typical name-calling and changing-the-subject, only this time the desperation is off the charts!
I've got a PhD in a relevant subject, done years of relevant work so you can trust and believe me. AGW is a load of scientific nonsense. OK?
CLIMATEGATE
As an academic I had faith in the scientific process, indeed I was part of it, and so it gives me no pleasure to offer this assessment.
Most of us have only a few shared and ever-present recollections. Maybe it was Kennedy’s assassination, or the fall of the Berlin wall. Perhaps we can now add one more. We are, in all probability, witnessing the demise of the global-warming myth. If so, this is fortuitous in that mankind will be able to invest its resources in making life better for future generations, rather than fighting a non-existent threat. A threat which was a figment created by a cabal of self-serving ‘scientists’ who, in the process, abandoned their principles and their self-respect.
If proven, the concealment and gross manipulation of the original raw data and of the subsequent analyses was a grotesque undertaking. It was designed to enhance the kudos of a small group of scientists, and to benefit financially some of the world’s most powerful lobby groups.
It is now for our ‘leaders’, most of whom have themselves been duped, to take a grip on what is surely the greatest scientific scandal. But to whom will our politicians turn for advice? Many of their potential advisers are already tainted by their earlier endorsements.
A failure to resolve this question with some speed will mean that we waste hundreds of billions nationally, and trillions globally, on pursuing a chimera.
Charles Lee on November 29, 2009 at 02:57 PM
Yes I went over to the Grauniad earlier today, and was amazed by the number of, "This post has been removed, and any answers may be removed also" that there were. Funnily, there were not many anti posts on the blog. Perhaps the ones removed were full of support for AGW, but somehow I don't think that that is the case.
Judging by one or two of the more hysterical posts on here the AGW protagonists are having a bad hair day.
My God people.
All of a sudden the global warming skeptics are at a loss for words.
Sadly the people who would have profited from this scam and orchestrated it as well will never se a day in court or jail time. Al Gore was feeding us a load of BS and the wholw while setting up these huge corporations under the Company GIM dealing with carbon credits and “Green solutions”. I wish the liberal ass wip** were dogs so that I can rub their face in their own poop.
JMANON
"This is not an naturally apologetic writer. This is not someone who will admit he is wrong. He does admit he has been let down by the CRU crowd. He calls for Jones to be fired, but why? "
When he fell on his sword he neglected to mention that it is a "Modelled" sword and therefore without substance. :)
Bravo, Christopher Booker!
You've set out the challenges and problems very well. It is, of course, up to others to do their jobs now. I'm not so sure we'll find willing prosecutors, of the legal variety or otherwise, to do the hard work of investigating and (one way or another) punishing these miscreants.
This is too important a topic for these idiots to have done so poorly with it. However, it appears to me as obvious malfeasance, not misfeasance. I can't believe we've been sold such a bill of goods, regarding the scientific integrity of the hypothesis of AGW.
San Quintin, it is your blind worship of these "incorruptible" scientists that got us in this position in the first place. If we all had to go to graduate school to criticize the behavior of others, we'd be left with a lot of crickets chirping. I suppose you have a doctorate in economics, or else you can never complain about financial conditions. Or a medical degree, to have any say on health care. It doesn't take a great deal of fancy book learning to spot lies and corruption, it takes common sense.
gale Combs " Instead I find journalists colluding with the politicians to manipulate the public and hide the corruption."
Hey presto, we now have a president who has successfully hidden most of his past from public scrutiny thanks to the collusion of the media.
san quintin on November 29, 2009 at 03:11 PM
And my dad is bigger than your dad, so there!
Mike Donald on November 29, 2009 at 03:24 PM
"90% of climatologists now believe we've little chance of keeping within a 2 degree Centigrade rise."
So you have asked them all have you? How many 'climatologists do you know, and how many are there in total. Even the CRU bunch admitted that there were many in the field who disagreed with their findings; it just set out to deny them any access to the data and to discredit their work. Read the emails and, more importantly, look into the CODE.
Thank goodness we are finding out the corruption on the part of the Global Warming scientists before Obama could pass is even more corrupt cap & trade program at the cost of trillions upon trillions of dollars to to the American economy. These corrupt scientist should be thrown into jail and we need to start completely over finding out what is really going on with our climate, if anything?
San Quintin
I love your quote "At the moment you are like a bunch of estate agents debating quantum mechanics." If I remember correctly ... I think it was Albert Einstein who turned the world of physics on his head .... while he was still employed as a patent clerk in a government office.
Your obvious reliance on 'authority' and your disdain for anyone who demonstrates they can think for themselves is telling. I suggest you just shut-up and watch.
There seems to be a great deal of inertia in the Copenhagen publicity campaign.
Of course they have staged a number of activities to point up "climate change" and having a conference at this time of year means they are pretty sure to get some kind of extreme weather some where on the planet to point to.
They will have had a stream of press releases and alarmist statements prepared and time released into a receptive and favorable media.
It might all be very convincing if Climategate hadn't happened.
It might be even more convincing if they were able to respond to climategate in some way but once set loose and running, their campaign seems stuck in run ode and they can't seem to get control back.
EdMilliballs sorry, ed millibank's website is pooling for hot choices oamongst the green issues to take to Copenhagen. No mention of ZClimategate and over here at the University of East Anglia, up pops Bob Watson (Professor Bob Watson, chief scientists at the department for environment and rural affairs - Professor Robert Watson is a former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - but also Professor of Environmental Sciences; Director of Strategic Development, Tyndall
.)with his Copenhagen think piece about the damage done to the cause by scepticism.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/22/climate-change-emissions-scientist-watson
Hmm. Maybe he should have called this back in again.
I wonder where he fits in those emails?
I believe "climate-gate" is a misnomer, it should properly be called carbon-gate, since the big lie is that human carbon emissions cause global warming.
Climate change occurs because of the wobble of the earth's axis, a very inconvenient fact (and ignored) because if we reduced all greenhouse gases to zero (except for water vapor of course), climate change will still occur.
In fact, if we removed water vapor from our atmosphere, we'd be committing suicide!
The most disturbing facet of this shocking scandal is the bullying of naysayers.
It's not just that doubting global warming would earn you sneers and dirty glares at any smart dinner party. It's the accusations of lying for pecuniary reasons at the behest of oil companies etc., when it's now becoming clear that the Hockey Team was engaged in the greatest pack of lies for secondary gain ever.
They meant to bring about not just the maximization of taxes for their governmental sponsors, and a bonanza for the scheming Goldman Sachs types who would get rich trading carbon indulgences, but a radical circumscription in human liberty.
James Hansen has even been calling for Stalinist show trials for those who deny man-made global warming. This is as close as the modern scientific establishment has ever got to Lysenkoism.
We have probably dodged a bullet, but the fight is not over. There is big money behind this lie.
The lesson of the past week is that those who fancy themselves to be enlightened liberals should take a serious look at their own prejudices and premises. This is the most illiberal, inhumane conspiracy in my lifetime.
Interesting comment about Moonbat, so I took a look at his Guardian page and began to wonder if they are going to hang him out to dry.
Just take a look and look at the articles list.
If you wanted to paint a picture of a complete and utter prat, especially in the light of Climategate, you couldn't do better than this list.
In the centre we have "Global warming rigged? Here's the mail I'd like to see."
This is his tongue in cheek denouncement of Phil Jones followed by a ficticious email along the lines of the Priory of Sion from Da Vinci Code. In other words, he wasn't having it.
Top right is:
"Pretending the climate email leak isn't a crisis won't make it go away"
Which he begins by saying:
"Climate sceptics have lied, obscured and cheated for years. That's why we climate rationalists must uphold the highest standards of science."
This is not an naturally apologetic writer. This is not someone who will admit he is wrong. He does admit he has been let down by the CRU crowd. He calls for Jones to be fired, but why?
He still remains firmly on the AGW side of the of the argument and his real beef is that it is his credibility that is at risk (don't worry mate, the AGW camp are like you, they won't give up an article of faith and they won't give you up.)
He is just biding his time till he can come on strong again.
Of course, with the primary manipulators of data found out how he can still remain committed to AGW is debatable.
More honest would be to say that the AGW position has been well and truly sunk. It doesn't mean that AGW isn;t true, just that this work can no longer be relied upon to proe it and we now need to start again and see just what is the truth. It will show, beyond shadow of doubt, through properly open and honest work, that either AGW exists or it doesn't and we will then respond accordingly.
Of course, he won;t say that but what it means is he is as firmly committed as ever, its just that his position is now revealed to be belief based rather than evidence based.
But we knew that anyway.
Don't expect me to give any credit for anything since his every utterance is calculated in alignment with this belief base, crocodile tears and fake apologies not withstanding.
Global Warming?....IT'S BLOODY COLD THIS AFTERNOON!,UP 'ERE IN LANCASHIRE!. (and still not had my heating allowance!)
No question, climate change is due to the secondary effects of smoking.(excluding of course the 'Commons bar')
Great job Christopher ..... as a double degree earth scientist, it is with great pleasure that I am watching the total disintegration of the AGW 'theory'. I shall now take even more pleasure and just watch from the sidelines as those muppet politicians spend the next 12 months trying to work out how to spin their way out of their ideological positions. I make one prediction - if Barak Obama attends Copenhagen he can kiss goodbye to any chance of being re-elected in 2012. Who is going to want a president who got it so completely wrong ?
san quintin : a lot of us have engineering and scientific degrees , myself included .
Let's see the raw figures along with full details on how they were collected .
HEY !!
I JUST WENT ONLINE TO BUY MR BOOKER'S BOOK AND ITS 'NOT AVAILABLE' !!
PRINT SOME MORE : CUT DOWN A RAINFOREST IF YOU HAVE TO !!
Man on Waterloo Bridge @7:57pm
I saw those young people in Leicester Sq yesterday as well. They had the same demented smiles as the Hari Krishna people who wear saffron and dance up Oxford St. Many young people are bewildered and lost in this world and they feel safe when they join 'causes' which give them a sense of belonging and purpose. People like Gore and the others who are making money and gaining more power from this know that if you indoctrinate them young enough , you've got them for life. That is why Gore's film has been so widely promoted in schools.
It's an obscenity and it's a criminal act of misinformation.I am fervent about preserving the planet but this is a gigantice con being perpetrated for financial gain and will ultimately ruin all our lives if we let them get away with it.
By totally destroying the worldwide economic system you can introduce a global order in which elitism trumps national boundaries... The goal is not the environment but a complete global capitulation & surrender to place power in the hands of a FEW forever... Imagine a world in which power is held by trillionaires who distribute rules through tax penalties and manufactured pandemics...
"Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation"
Grossly incorrect and perversely 180 degrees wrong.
Sadly climatologists have suffered the worst disinformation and vilification at the hands of the fossil fuel lobby. 90% of climatologists now believe we've little chance of keeping within a 2 degree Centigrade rise.
Steamboat @ 02.27pm Thanks steamboat, somebody with some sense!, governments are in so much shit financialy (and other ways), they want us to talk about ANYTHING so long it's not the BLUNDERING! they are doing in the way they TRY!!! to run the countries under there control!
Mother earth is in a'Spin'; her
water and gravitational powers
control the main weather and temperature changes.The Plate
structures move and cause extreme pressures and this can cause extreme local changes; and scientist should be prepared to study the global effects of how the Magnetic North Pole has slipped in dramatic fashion several times.
North Russia had a Equitorial climate many thousands of years ago.Mammoths&sabre tooth tigers remains found with types of food readily discerned in their stomaches.The Afar Desert area near the Red Sea/Indian Ocean juncture is being split by a line of Volcanoes;
UK Scientists have suggested the Red Sea will eventually fill an inland sea of vast proportions. Sun Spots add further controls on our Planet. I am afraid puny man cannot control Mother Earth.
No way will changing light bulbs help!
Who's paying these people to fix the figures?
Surely, as professional scientists, they wouldn't do it without some incentive?
Anyone got any ideas?
As usual, ignorant Telegraph readers have got the wrong end of the stick. Pretty much every single statement in Booker's article is wrong or misleading. Isn't it amazing that Telegraph readers seem to have a better understanding of climate science than the thousands of climate scientists around the world. Your arrogance and ignorance is breathtaking. Put your ideological views to one side, do a PhD in a relavent subject, then a couple of years post-doc and then start writing and publishing some scientific papers. Only then will you be in a position to judge the science.
At the moment you are like a bunch of estate agents debating quantum mechanics.
This article might raise a laugh or two.
The Cooling World
Newsweek, April 28, 1975
Read the whole article, with pictures, here
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf
"There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth....To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."
Having raised the prospect of world-wide famines, they go on...
"...Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions..."
And now it's time to suggest some solutions...
"Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."
We can call it Climategate, I suppose, but what's the fun in that?
I propose, "Mann-Caused Global Warming"
As usual, ignorant Telegraph readers have got the wrong end of the stick. Pretty much every single statement in Booker's article is wrong or misleading. Isn't it amazing that Telegraph readers seem to have a better understanding of climate science than the thousands of climate scientists around the world. Your arrogance and ignorance is breathtaking. Put your ideological views to one side, do a PhD in a relavent subject, then a couple of years post-doc and then start writing and publishing some scientific papers. Only then will you be in a position to judge the science.
Thank God Christopher Booker and the Sunday Telegraph are telling the full story of this huge distortion of the underpinnings of scientific method and values. It has been obvious to many of us for a long time now that the facts are being distorted.
The question that cries out to be answered is: who has been pulling the strings of Phil Jones, Briffa, Mann et al.? Why did they think it worthwhile to bully, lie, distort and conceal the facts and data, and intimidate the editors of leading journals. Have the politicians been dupes or s there something else here that does not immediatley meet the eye...
Booker is right that Lord Ress, the President of the Royal Society is probaly not qualified to lead any public enquiry into the scandal. He has been a leading advoacte for the warming lobby.
Also is it time for Geofrey Lean, of the 'Daily Telegraph' to change his credulous warmist tune now that the cat is truly out of the bag?
Just checking George Monbiot's latest blog (comment is now closed and the Guardian don't let me express an opinion anyway), a regular warmist contributor adds the following:
"George, this hasn't hit the news. The BBC and al-Jazeera don't even have it on their front pages. The Daily Mail has a story, but it's based around your comments. You've done a lot of unnecessary damage, mate."
Poor George has disappointed his fans by being open and honest in his reaction to the scandal.
What he should have done, clearly, is hunker down, say nothing and hope it all blows over.
Never mind the enormity of what Jones and his deadbeats have done and what they have said in the emails (at least one of which is a clear invitation to commit a criminal act). Ignore that all that, abandon any sense of morality, ethics and decency...say nothing, George.
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php
Signed by 31,000+ scientists, 9000 with Phd's.
The dog ate my climate data.
Good for you, Mr Booker. The warmists mistakenly think the "basic science" is all on their side (they've all heard of the "greenhouse effect") just like establishment figures in Galileo's time, who stopped thinking after they had read their classical authorities. The British scientific establishment should re-read their Latin, "Nullius in verba".
Please keep up the momentum and expose the criminal and corrupt scientists and politicians that will destroy our lives through Carbon taxation and other stupid measures based on lies...BBC covers up this story as well as the Gov... Well done to Christopher Booker fro this article! God Bless you.
AGW theory and credibility seems to be falling apart before our very eyes, yet politicians are - as usual, clearly not listening.
The Tory shadow environment minister Greg Barker is as pro-AGW green as Cameron and Osborne are. Wake up you idiots!
They support our absurd governments intentions and are as determined as ever to ram as much legislation, pledges and promises as they possibly can through the Copenhagen summit.
Probably why I am unlikely to be voting Tory this time round.
Thank you for presenting an honest, thoughtful and concise report of this scandal. I have always though we were being feed a load of bull poo so fear would drive the public into accepting laws that would harm them.
The amount of down right lies I have caught the media feeding the public made me think there was no honest journalism left. When the nationwide TV news in the USA showed films of riots that never took place (I was there) and did not show massive protests that DID take place (I was there), I realized the news was manipulated. The more recent news blackout on food poisoning leading to the death of a women despite prior knowledge by the USDA and a US Congressman confirmed my opinion.
Despite two Congressional Investigations the problem still stands and no one was punished for the preventable death of the women.
I bring this up because journalists are supposed to be our last protection against this type of corruption within the government. Instead I find journalists colluding with the politicians to manipulate the public and hide the corruption. So thank you again for a bit honest journalism that is so rare today.
For those interested in the story of the woman's death checkout the story by an attorney that John Munsell contacted in his vain attempts to prevent this death.
http://www.marlerblog.com/2009/07/articles/lawyer-oped/one-e-coli-o157h7-outbreak-i-think-i-could-have-prevented/
And the testimony of the Union Chairman Stan Painter, that was ignored:
http://data.opi.mt.gov/legbills/2009/Minutes/Senate/Exhibits/ags55a13.pdf
The food poison problem still remains even though the USDA, FDA and the US Congress is well aware of the cause and the solution. The cause? - transfer of food testing to industry and the shutting of government testing labs. The solution? Government testing and tightening back up of relaxed standards such as allowing feces covered meat to be sold to the public.
That such a critical yet simple news story was killed by the owners of the news media in the USA - yes the story was actually written by a New York City reporter and then killed by the media's owner - is as big a scandal as the corruption of Science.
Thank goodness for the internet and the few honest journalists left.
As a former Weather Observer in the area of Eastern Oregon and Washington States,USA,and as one who has had Scientific Training(Bachelor of Science,)in Biology.Also 28 years as a Professional
Pilot.I have always been a climate skeptic.Knowing cycles that are part of the
Natural order of things,Warm, Cool, Hot,Dry,-never occurred to me that anything else but
"Data Adjustment" somehow was going on with the Climate Scare.I do not want my hard earned tax dollars to disappear into the pockets of UN kleptocrats.For the sake of Chimera control, or Unicorn rescue...
Gymnarchus
on November 29, 2009
at 12:26 PM
"Remember the hole in the ozone layer, only global action to ban CFC's cured that problem."
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/meteorology/ozone_2009.html
Spot the problem with that statement!
I have to wonder - did Al Gore know about any of this?
Rachel writes:
"Would Mr Booker please explain why the laws of thermodynamics no longer apply to the Earth's atmosphere.....
Got it now? Thermodynamics = fact. Catastrophic warming = pure speculation based on models. Which don't work."
The use of the term "Thermodynamics" in this context, seems a bit misleading, since thermodynamics is really about systems at equilibrium - which the earth's atmosphere obviously is not!
The fact that CO2 absorbs in the infrared is not in doubt, but the contribution that this makes to global warming is far from clear - water vapour, being the major greenhouse gas.
The CRU was supposed to be determining the actual behaviour of the earth in response to the extra CO2 - not fiddling the data to obtain a predetermined answer!
Hmm.
The Daily Telegraph may take some credit, undeservedly, for such coverage of Climategate as there is but it is realy to the credit of just a few people who continue to buck the trend.
CB and JD for example.
However, the Environmental Editor and the overall policy re AGW is firmly aligned with the BBC on the side of the AGW camp and hence on side with Messrs Cameron, Brown and whoever is in charge of the Liberal party these days.
But the climategate story has never been front page where it ought to be.
Christopher Monkton who once enjoyed better treatment at this newspaper, gets better coverage in the US and eslewhere despite being the one to alert us to the very unsual terms of the Copehagen EU style non-democratic global government that it attempts to set up.
As others have noted, even in the climate realist (denier in media speak) stories some one liberally scatters them with polar bear pictures, cooling tower steam clouds pictures and the like.
None of the stories has any "stickiness". Unless you bookmark them (or use Bing for a search engine) you may never find them again. Google has finally yielded and restored Climategate as one of the prompts as you type it into the search bar (in Bing once you get "cli" typed it fills the rest in for you).
That the Prime Miister is off to Copenhagen with his Superman Suit newly cleaned and pressed and his magic pen to sign agreements in his pocket, with the intent to sign us up for this new world government with as little democratic accountability as he signed us up for the junior EU version - the Lisbon Treaty - makes this a globally significant and critically important piece of news. More important that duck houses and flipping second homes.
What the MPs expenses cost us is not even pocket money compared to what the Green policies will cost.
SO as fast as they appear these stories disappear. I have given up taking the printed version of this newspaper in disgust. What appears before the general reader I have no idea.
On the web site I expect some stickiness.
I expect that one of the menu items should be Climategate and it should link to any and all stories run now or in the past.
But the DT is only payng lip service to this, the biggest story of this or the last century and it is, paradoxically, quite contrary to the usual newspaper mantra of "the public's right to know".
But I'll tell you what does have enduring stickiness on the website, the link proclaiming:
"Al Gore: Climate Change Solutions"
Maybe Al gore owns part of the Telegraph as he does Google?
I think that as well as writing here, as Christopher Booker and James Delingpole do, they should push for far greater story recognition with the editors.
The Telegraph appears to be doing well out of this in the international web world and in the traditional media. All roads lead back t the Climategate article by James.
The telegraph is getting credit it doesn't deserve but which a few writers do.
The watermelons are in denial, ignoring what has happened, and upping the hype - "the sea is going to rise 2 metres; it is even worse than we thought; cimate change is accelerating; we are all doomed; unless you send us lots and lots of money".
AGW fans need to prepare their fallback position-something like this.
1. The recent controversy shows how complex the climate is, and indicates the need for even more money to study what is an undoubted problem.
2. Even if it turns out that the crisis is not immediately at hand, surely it's a good idea to move toward a sustainable future (insert usual causes here), for the ultimate good of the planet and humanity.
Remember,the important thing is to preserve the progressive faith, the ideology that upholds AGW (and keep the money flowing).
Excellent work Mr. Booker! Keep fighting and 'Nil illegitimum carborundum' or, don't let the bastards grind you down.
"Certainly a completely independent enquiry is called for."
Good luck with that. The Government will choose an "independent" chair, of course.
Should you happen to find yourself watching BBC, count the number of times they use the term 'climate change'. I am sure there is a competition between programme makers as to the number of times they can use the term 'climate change'.
I was watching the BBC One show, and article of the show was on rare alpine flowers in north wales, within less than 5 mins they must have used the term about 5 times. It was almost like brain washing and thought manipulation.
Thank you for this article. Cap-and-trade and Copenhagen would destroy the world economy. Worse, it would put wanna-be Socialist Apparatchiks in charge of our future.
Global Warming is a hoax!!
The BBC was still "full-on" with its AGW agenda this morning. And of all places on The Andrew Marr Show. He even had the leader of the Green Party on the show spouting their usual brainless, unworkable ideologies without interuption. He did though raise the question of the flawed data from CRU and it was just dismissed out of hand as being meaningless and irrelevant! And did he challenge any of this tripe like he would do normally? Did he hell.
One last thing, when the Indonesian Tsunami of 2006 occurred an "eco-expert", being interviewed live on BBC radio blamed it all on Global Warming. This did not even go unchallenged - absolutely outrageous! Well that told me everything I suspected about the BBC and its agenda.
Shame on you BBC!
The discipline of climate behaviour should have been in the hands of proper scientists such as physicists. Unfortunately, at the time this was happening, many physics departments were facing closure. The upshot was that this important discipline was handed over to a bunch of people with no background in physics. The result has been “bean” counting, and plotting graphs, something any child with an Excel program could have done. This is not science. To call these people scientists harms the reputation of proper science and scientists, in more ways then the obes pparant here. Lets name them for what they are - environmentalists and eco-freaks masquerading as scientists.
What really hurts, is that politicians have decided that AGWCC is the answer they wanted, and are now happy to go along with making huge tax increases, on the basis of a "proven" science.
Gymnarchus on November 29, 2009
at 12:26 PM
"The planet is warming that is a fact and the only factor that can account for this is the production of greenhouse gases. Both quantities have been measured and both are increasing and both correlate with each other, Duh!"
Only in the models!
Empiricists see other correlations and there are many papers to this end, a recent one regarding the energy transfer impact of the solar wind, another being the land use change contribution to surface temperatures plus many more not forgetting the increasingly understood roles of the oceanic oscillations and how they impact distant climate conditions such as drought and monsoon. The correlations with oceanic oscillations, solar activity and temperatures have more correlation confidence than the CO2 correlation (25%?). Here is a picture...
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/PDOAMOTEMP.jpg
"Remember the hole in the ozone layer, only global action to ban CFC's cured that problem."
Remember it, it is still there! But not mentioned so much in the MSM for some reason. It grows during the Antarctic winter and shrinks again during the summer. Is particularly affected by solar cycle activity. To update on the CFC questions try http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~qblu/Lu-2009PRL.pdf
The replacement of a cheap to produce somewhat inert gas (especially for closed loop systems) for a more volatile and expensive to manufacture gas with less heat transfer efficiency adding to energy demands. A replacement that due to its atmospheric problems will soon itself be outlawed and need to be replaced again with all the attendant costs that will once again end up with the tax payer.
Some wags have suggested that the solution is to use CFC again but that would tarnish the Montreal Protocol and all those that benefited and, of course, lack the profit potential.
"The planet is warming that is a fact and the only factor that can account for this is the production of greenhouse gases. Both quantities have been measured and both are increasing and both correlate with each other, Duh!"
Correlation does not equal causation. There is another correlation: official temperature monitoring stations are increasingly located in heat sinks such as tarmac and air conditioner vents. The MAJORITY of them are and it IS documented.
"Quibbling about hockey sticks is a distraction by sophists who don't want to take any action."
Shying from debate is a distraction by those who do not have the truth on their side.
"Remember the hole in the ozone layer,"
You mean the hole that's still there?
"only global action to ban CFC's cured that problem."
You mean the CFCs that were about to go off Dupont's patent before Dupont "invented" the hole in the ozone "problem" so they could ban CFCs and introduce an inferior product that would not have to compete against a superior product? Yeah, I remember that.
"Global warming is a fact"
Global warming and global cooling have been facts since the birth of the planet. It's also a fact on Mars: is that caused by my SUV too?
"and we have the means to do something about it"
Don Quixote to the rescue!
"and we should because if we don't it will be dire for future generations."
Amazing. Even when you see that the very people who have been "proving" this problem have done so with lies, you still believe them.
"If you are in a car heading towards a cliff edge do you apply the brake or pray to God to do it for you?"
Indeed.
People ask what the motivation would be to fix the argument. Well the fact that the whole show is being organised by the UN should be a big clue.
The UN (apart fom the Security Council) is by and large financed by the USA with small contributions from Japan and Europe, but it is controlled by the 3rd World. A quick glance at any UN conference world wide will confirm this.
If Copenhagen goes through huge amounts of money will pass from the 1st World to the 3rd World to compensate them for the additional costs of bringing their economies into the 21st C without relying on oil.
The leaders of the 3rd world see this as 1000 Xmases at once.
Left wingers see redistribution as part and parcel of a fairer planet.
The leaders of the 1st world know that in order to make these transfers they are going to have to raise taxes, not all of which needs to go to the 3rd World.
For high tax and spend government this is manna from heaven. Who can refuse to pay more to Save The Planet.
Unfortunately for them the game is up.
I understand that the CRU is willing to release its raw temperature data but this must await permission from various owners with a commercial interest. Now is the time for reputable scientists along with journal editors to insist that henceforth no paper, in any discipline, shall be published unless the raw data upon which conclusions are based are available to anyone requesting them and at no cost greater than that of distribution.
It's over for AGW. Everyone now knows it was nothing more than a scam.
Forget "big oil", everyone can see that government money corrupts.
Time to spark up the coal-fired powerstations again.
Well done, Mr. Booker. I join with others who have expressly asked the DT to take on this issue as a campaign. They will earn the undying gratitude of the world is they start this ball rolling in Europe. I think the US will come to accept the truth more quickly than the extremely p.c. British, whose media is controlled by the BBC and Sky, both of whom are planning big splashes during the upcoming Copenhagen fiasco. You'll get little help from them until the dust has died on yet another talking shop, which hopefully will result in little but more "hot air" (excuse the pun).
Those who laugh at George Monbio should be ashamed. He has had the courage to admit his mistake and his disappointment in being misled. If only those crooked scientists would show such humility. I hope than now The Guardian will start to bestow the truth on their readers, even though many of them. dyed in the wool 'greens" and human-haters, will find it difficult to accept a truth which they may find very inconvenient indeed!
By Alastair Jamieson
Published: 10:42AM GMT 29 Nov 2009
WHy is Alastair being allowed to write such rubbish now that the climate change idiots are exposed as the frauds they are ?
Why is the DT still endorsing this climate change rubbish with adverts for the march ?
Ignore David Welch... he's a fool even contradicting himself in his own comment. He is also old enough to recall the global cooling scares of the 70s with the next ice age due in a few years time ! What a shame Altzheimers has hit him and rendered his memory so selective and ignoring of the truth.
I know, give me all your money and then we will burn the food. What could go wrong?
All this enviro-wacko nonsense we see today is not just bad science, it is public policy so ill conceived that it constitutes a threat to human lives. It harms people by truncating access to food, energy, shelter... in short the basic necessities of life.
This is the story of a criminal conspiracy that trades off human lives in order to aggrandize for the conspirators wealth, fame and influence... heads must roll.
Lots of heads.... rolling. That's the ticket.
Having now read a few of the comments, I would like to remind some that there is a difference between a possible small green house effect (that might be one of many knock-on effects of civilization needing to be addressed in proper order) and catastrophic global warming that constitutes an emergency which demands a reordering of civilization.
There is some evidence of the former, nothing but speculation for the latter. Pretty wild speculation IMO. If the earth were as unstable and prone to "tipping points" as some speculate it would have "tipped" long ago.
This is too important to leave to the whim of self-interested governments and scientists. We need a Royal Commission. Sign the petition here:
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/climate-comm-rc/
Tom Stearns @ 11:42 AM, 29 Nov.
Almost a Century ago a young scroat called Erwin Schrodinger was doing his PhD and came up with an Equation/Hypothesis which suggested that there were unknowable things at the very small scale encountered at the Molecular/Atomic/Subatomic level.
A Mr Albert Einstein (considered by many to be the Greatest Mind of his Age in Physics) was unimpressed with the idea (God does not play dice was one quote attributed to him).
It turns out that, at present, the Genius was wrong and the scroat was right.
Conclusion : Your arguement does not stand!
M White @ 11:42 AM
"...there is ”all hell breaking loose” among news producers and presenters at the BBC over the corporation’s censoring of the Climagate story."
The BBC has three versions of handling controversial stories:
1,) Cover it in full, e.g. sending 35 staffers just to cover a 2-day event in Copenhagen.
2.) Let someone else "break" the story, then just quote them.
3.) Ignore it and hope it goes away, e.g. if it embarrasses the BBC, its staff or Alistair Campbell.
We are in version 3, at the moment, though it's hard to say how long they can carry on pretending it's all "business as usual".
There is a huge belief in AGW by politicians, the media and especially the BBC (who ignore my complaints about lack of impartiality) This belief is fed by scientists who have been corrupted by money and a desire for prestige. There should be a revolution against all this hysteria because the cost and suffering to be created at Copenhagen is beyond comprehension.
I applaud the ST in allowing CB to publish his articles, but where is the Editorial to support him. And today the paper carries an advert from 'Act On CO2' which states that '40% of all CO2 is caused by heating and lighting our homes, and driving our cars. How do they get away with these lies, and why does the paper agree to publish them.
The Daily Mail has an excellent article today by Prof Plimer, and good comments from Peter Hitchens. Read Online!
The Daily Telegraph is to be commended for covering this matter in depth.
Also in the past, it is the Telegraph, almost singularly, which has allowed alternative views to be expressed in respect of global warming alarmism.
The BBC to its ternal shame is now a defacto campaigning organisation, in respect of global warming alarmism, but does not even have the integrity to admit as much or to accept that it is also deliberately stifling debate.
One problem is that self named climate scientists have so polluted science in this field that they must be disbanded and the science passed back to the physcists and geologists. If statistics are to be used in analysis of data this must be carried out by trained professionals.
These people not only struck at the heart of the scientific method but also at the heart of British democracy.
"Hockey stick?
It isn't rocket science. The planet is warming that is a fact and the only factor that can account for this is the production of greenhouse gases"
As they say in the East End of London, you're having a larf, aren't you, Gymnarchus?
Don't think we can't spot a troll.....
Great article, but the important thing now is to keep the issue from being swept back under the rug. From their public reaction the strategy of the perps and the liberal media is obviously to pooh-pooh the matter until the attention span of the public shifts to the next "crisis".
They must not be allowed to get away with it. Before anything else is proposed about climate change the science must be done publicly and properly.
Poor George:
"I have seldom felt so alone"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-leak-crisis-response
Mr Booker I feel that you are making yourself very unpopular in certain quarters with your clear and reasoned assessment of the evidence in this matter.
May I urge you to keep a close eye on your personal safety because you are rocking the boat and the Establishment will not be liking it.
A great article Chris, and an equally good book, I am on the last pages now. I agree with an earlier blogger - Chris a front page article PLEASE!
Leslie Holt
on November 29, 2009
at 11:44 AM
Great post and very true
Global warming is the bastard child of people who operate beyond any democractic scrutiny. The political elite represent their interests and ambitions, not those of the people thay are employed and paid to represent.
"Such is the parasitisation of human life from the manipulative few who have grand designs on farming humanity for profit that people in essence; can expect no help soon from your governments, your politicians."
This is the nexus of the problem and its roots lie in the 'money system'
Money is not backed by tangible assets. It is backed by US. We are the surety for the debts created in the fiat money system. We are pledged to service the debts and the artificial bankruptcy imposed upon us by the World Bank and the IMF. There is no such thing as money. There is only debt and we are pledged to service those debts in perpetuity.
Thus, humanity has become a nothing more than a 'resource' to be exploited and taxed to fund the grandiose schemes of people most of us have never even heard of. I speak of the International banking cartels who operate the global central banking system. Their monopoly control over the global money system is the root of the problem.
Now that the fiat money system is running into a brick wall, namely exponential population qrowth and finite resources, the 'powers that be' are creating a new world order that will de-industrailize the world and reduce the developed nations to third world levels of poverty and hardship.
The developed nations are pledging to cut carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. The only way this can possibly be achieved is to drastcially reduce global population via grinding poverty, disease, war and any other diabolical schemes they can dream up.
Human beings are mere cattle. We are grazing on 'their' land. They are preparing a cull. They will send 80% of humanity to the abbatoir by 2050.
The avowed aim of the Bilderberg Group is an 80% reduction in human life on this planet by 2050.
We are facing a danger so breathtaking in scope, Hitler and Stalin would blush at the scale of it. People need to wake up very quickly to what is being planned.
Contrary to the many posters who say the BBC is ignoring this story - it's tucked away on the Science and Environment sub-section of the BBC website here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8383713.stm
Will that be sufficient?
But then again I might be just trying to ingratiate myself and get back on telly. Ha!
As a life-long educator and society changing eco - product innovator, I have to say, proper objective analysis is king. All else is built on sand.
Leaving the subject matter aside for one minute - compromising any methodology, publicly funded or otherwise, seems worthy of further investigation.
Some clearer thinking might also spare us the wooly battery car nonsense as featured this week on BBC ONE's THE ONE SHOW.
Oooops! There goes any chance of any more telly work!
John Francis
on November 29, 2009
at 10:16 AM
Yes I totally agree with you .. how the climate change advocates are total flat earth society members .. completely unwilling to open their eyes to any evidence to the contrary.
Don't worry .. the world is round and they will find out soon enough !
For your coverage of this. For your courage and professionalism in doing so - thank you.
I would like to know whether the environmental assessments have an imputation system . EG. if a business that just used electricity - eg. lights , computers etc. was assessed - whould they have to pay in addition to the electricity supplier ? I bet they multiply charge !
That's an excellent photo of steam rising from cooling towers but it doesn't fit the CO2 emissions caption. and steam isn't really a pollutant.
What's needed instead is a photo of smoke rising from chimneys.
John Small (November 29, 2009
at 07:10 AM)
"Would Mr Booker please explain why the laws of thermodynamics no longer apply to the Earth's atmosphere."
Please let me try.
The MMGW catastrophe theory does not only rest on known radiative and other physics. It argues that temperature rise will be amplified by "postive feedback". This further requirement is unphysical in a passive system. It would be like jumping into a basket and lifting yourself off the ground by the handle.
It doesn't comply with the law of conservation of energy. If we could find a passive physical system that behaved in that way, we would be on the road to a perpetual motion machine.
So there is your answer - the hypothesis of catastroph due to MMGW doesn't stick to the laws of thermodynamics.
Further, climatologists have set out the theory in detail, and included a predition that MMGW should be most evident by a temperature rise above the tropics. Recognising the radiative physics, the temperature rise at the upper troposhpere should be about twice that at ground level in that region. This is known as "the big red spot" signature of MMGW. You can see it in the IPCC reports.
The next step in the scientific process is observation. But the big red spot is not observed in the radiosonde data.
That is as close as you can get to "disproved" in observational science.
It would therefore be good to drop the Lysencoism and attend to some real issues. But there is so much momentum behind MMGW juggernaut that it will take quite some time to stop. That's why it is important that the alternative view is given a fair hearing. The BBC's position is quite wrong and needs to be changed.
For Tom Stearns:
"On one side, the current members and alumni of the Royal Society of London for the Improvement of Natural Knowledge, the most prestigious science body in the world; on the other, Christopher Dan Brown Walter Mitty Booker, history graduate, jazz critic and founding editor of Private Eye.
Hmm! The defence rests"
I think your presence is required today in the Church of Global Warming, Tom.
For some reason the congregation was very thin this morning.
Sing up - try not to let the echoes disturb you too much.
Thefutureisvegan @ 10:47 AM.
I did Statistics to Degree Level and have used them professionally in my work. I have NEVER heard the phrase "working the trick" or anything like it used by any Statistician. Uncidentally, most of the people on the e-mails are no more Professional Statisticians than I am.
Look at the readme.txt dealing with the code. If you know anything about writing software programs (I do), this file is damning!
Deniers do not have to disprove AGW, those who claim the Hypothesis is correct have to PROVE it by showing the Models make good predcitions at, virtually, all times.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual shows the 1997-2008 temps. Depending on where you choose your start/finish and what Period you use to set the baseline you can show that temps since 1997 are within trend, at the edge of trend or below trend. However, if you plot them on a piece of graph paper it looks like a "top" has occurred, IMHO.
Mean sea level has been rising for Centuries (after an ice age what else would you expect) but, if anything, the rate of rise has been slowing down for decades - it is certainly not accelerating at present (which is what some Warmists claim).
Nobody knows if the LIA was "highly localised" but there is some evidence to suggest that it was not. I am not aware of any evidence that shows that it was highly localised. Are you?
Funny how my comments which were highly critical of the hysterical climate change deniers have been taken off. Especially since some have challenged my views in their own blogs.
Leslie Holt
Thank you Mr Holt. Many , if not most, of us have known this for some tyears now but not been able to articulate like you have here.
But no politicians dares to step forward for fear of being branded a hateful racist , a climate denier , or some other label.
'Farming humanity' is a good way of describing what is happening. 'Democracy' died when the UK signed the first of the Treaties with the EU which has now with 'Lisbon', formalised our enslavement.
The conclusion is too terrible to contemplate.
That people cannot see through Gore and his manipulative film is utterly amazing..he grows fatter and richer and that is his sole motive for promoting 'the cause'.
NucEngineer @ 10.39pm --
Thanks for that explanation; it was helpful and enlightening.
Tom Stearns @ 11.42am --
As I understand it, this same august Royal Society was advising everyone in the early 1970s that we would have to paint all the rocks black to avoid the imminent Little Ice Age.
The Royal Society doesn't seem to have changed much. The main difference is in those who hear their message. In those days we were generally less gullible and had a more active 'bonkers' radar.
One of the reasons I left the atmospheric sciences field after getting graduate degrees in both statistics and meteorology was my (then) growing disgust with the politicization of the science - something that has subsequently become worse than what I had originally feared. Nevertheless, nothing in the hacked emails/computer code shocks me, as I had already known such things had been going on for a number of years. As an example, one of my former colleagues in finance (my current specialty) also switched to finance from meteorology. In his case, the motivation to switch was driven by the loss of most of the funding for the satellite meteorology group he worked in - the cut in their funding came not long after that group dared to produce satellite data showing only very modest warming trends.
The upshot is that I strongly suspect the hacked material out of CRU is only the tip of the iceberg. My suspicions are based not only on what I know from my friends and former fellow students/colleagues still in the atmospheric sciences, but also on what I see getting published and the all too frequent concomitant extreme torture of the data. I could easily fill pages merely discussing the brutalization of the data ...
Here in Canada the scientists are arguing with the local Inuit (eskimo) about the number of polar bears. The Inuit keep saying they are increasing in number.... but it doesn't fit the model. One old Inuit was saying he has never seen so many polar bear. It could be that they are moving off their traditional ice pack to move closer to food sources (humans). But I thought they were all going to drown?
Damned evolution it always does things you dont expect!
Wow, Mr Booker, you certainly struck gold with this story!
When Pliny the Younger was travelling to Bythinia in AD 111 in what is now Turkey, it was so hot that he developed heat stroke, and had to lie up for several days to recover.
I wonder if this was the result of the fossil fuel villains making the Romans buy petrol for their donkeys, or could it have been the unscrupulous Chinese with all their factory emissions from the silk worms?
Go back to the dawn of time and you will discern in humans a helpless desire to believe in a coming apocalypse. The Book of Revelations in the New Testament or the preaching of some of the Anabaptists in the 16th century are two of many examples. I grew up with stories of an approaching Ice Age and very recently we have shaken and shivered at the prospect of the millenium bug, sars, bird flu and now swine flu. It is a natural human characteristic to prophesy coming catastrophe and to seek to avoid it.
It may well be that there is some truth in the arguments of the AGW supporters but the extreme religious faith characteristics of the "Warmists" including their high priests in the left wing news media such as the BBC and their determination not to debate the science or answer the iceberg of a question immediately in front of us now (if AGW is so closely connected to mankind's production of CO2, which has been rising for many years, why have temperatures risen and fallen through this period, INCLUDING no rise over the last 8 years when the models on which the Warmists base their terrifying warnings predicted continuous rises?) it is very difficult for a rational person to take them seriously.
Whilst this is just debate, albeit unfairly biased, and a not-insignificant public bill for the employees within the global warming industry, this is perhaps acceptable. But soon it will move into very serious government policy, which will be responsible for, at best, reducing economic growth and losing many people their jobs and at worst the dislocation of the world’s economy. Against this background there can be no hint of improper manipulation of data by the Establishment or the Warmists.
Great job reporting the scandal! Keep on this great work!
Ecotretas
thefutureisvegan; GW zealots like yourself have made outrageous claim after outrageous claim. I think you will find it is up to you to show us 'deniers' the evidence
I don't know how Eric West can say that wind farms will never make a meaningful contribution to society. They might be able to provide 10% of our energy needs. It's a clean source of energy and leaves no toxic residues. There are problems associated with it, inevitably, such as the cost of establishing wind farms and locations of sites. Perhaps it would make sense to put them offshore. Similar sources of energy are gradually being developed, such as hydro electric power, using the sea or rivers, so they may be more effective in a hundred years time. Among our natural resources are the length of coast and supply of water so we might as well try to make use of them. Just think of the amount of energy that has been recently generated in Cumbria by the floods. If only that could be channelled and used to drive turbines somehow. I think Eric makes some good points as well. If there is scandal over falsified data, we shouldn’t let it prevent concern about other environmental issues, such as pollution, deforestation, and the gradual depletion of diversity among species. I am worried about deforestation. If you cut down all the rainforest, what will absorb the carbon dioxide and release oxygen during photosynthesis ? The balance in the atmosphere will change if the rainforests disappear and it may be that we will suffocate through lack of oxygen. I don’t know the technical details and scale of the thing but surely that is what could happen. The WHO should support organizations that are interested in reducing deforestation and perhaps establish a fund that will pay countries like Brazil and Indonesia to conserve and protect the rainforest. As Eric has said, we should continue to be aware of what we are doing to the planet. You can’t pollute the oceans and atmosphere without it affecting species and feeding back to us one day. I’m not a particular fan of the government, but it is a good thing that they have preserved the South Downs as a National Park in this country and supported a programme to plant more trees. It is a pity they didn’t put as much thought into pursuing a more sensible approach to migration when they were first elected. That is going to have a profound impact on the environment, for example, exacerbating problems associated with overcrowding such as traffic congestion and urbanization. Greater London and South East England is becoming more and more like Mexico City every day. Migration is a threat to the health of the population and the environment. Overcrowding damages health and causes increased levels of stress, aggression, and crime. Anyway, if there is one message we should wear on a t-shirt it is PLANT MORE TREES.
On Fox News Radio(on the internet) Listen again. Spencer Hughes 24 Nov 9:50. Still available to listen to (on Sunday)
Spencer Hughes says 'Fox News is the only national tv news outlet covering the climatgate scandal' (in the USA)
Mr. Booker,
Your article is a beautiful piece of writing. It puts in a nutshell things I have been trying to tell my friends for over three years, but I cannot find the words. You can.
It has been very dismaying to me how people have responded when I have so much as hinted at my suspicions regarding the corruption of IPCC data. It was the wrong thing to say, at a cocktail party. People would not merely look at me like I had been politically correct. I would get, (to put it mildly,) a public scolding.
So of course I learned to keep my big mouth shut. However sooner or later someone would bring up the subject of Global Warming again, (perhaps at another cocktail party,) and would say something so completely wrong my big mouth would open, and I'd be in for another public scolding. It wasn't fun at all.
Having these emails exposed is a huge vindication for me. It is going to be interesting to see how my friends, who were so swift to lecture me in the past, will respond.
Very good article. The silence of the BBC on this issue is appalling for a supposedly unbiased news organisation
"Paul Hudson has been told to ’shut up’ by his senior colleague, Roger Harrabin."
Roger with his degree in English who was aptly satirised years ago in Broken News as Roger Harbinger with his famous catchwords "it may already be too late".
An excellent article Mr Booker. Thank you and thank you to the Telegraph for printing these sordid happenings at The Climate Research Centre Of East Anglia University. Also a big thanks to the hacker/s for giving us the opportunity to show factually that global warming is nothing but a fraud.
The hype of global warming has always been based on prediction and projection so I wish to add a bit to your splendid article and that be an e-mail from Kevin Trenberth posted on October 14, 2009:
"The fact that we cannot account for what is happening in the climate system...." This means that if one cannot account for what is happening in the climate system you cannot model it making null and void All climate model predictions and projections. The hype of global warming is broken.
thefutureisvegan
I gave up addressing garbage a couple of years ago but this just made me laugh so here we go...
>So you have some emails in which a climate change denier is colourfully derided and some banter used by scientists when working on stats, like "applying the trick". Such a phrase is commonly used by scientists when preparing data for critical analysis.
>What you deniers have is nothing but, as ever, you'll huff and puff and bluster with ridiculous headlines, like the above, about the criminally obtained emails for all you're worth.
Political junk.
>What I'd like to see is even one line of data in reference to any evidence that a denier can muster which in any respect whatsoever can disprove Anthropogenic Global Warming theory.
We don't need to disprove your junk hypothesis - it's up to your side to "prove" it.
>Show me any evidence that the planet is cooling. Show me any evidence that the poles and glaciers across the planet aren't in rapid retreat.
Both would be natural. Glaciers have been in retreat since the end of the last ice age.
>Show me any evidence that CO2 can't heat the atmosphere
No need, as it does. We don't "deny" that.
>..and that only relatively small changes aren't enough to tip a delicate balance.
4.5 billion years and it hasn't happened yet. From anything.
>Show me any evidence that the seas are not rising.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
>Please don't try the "we've just had a cold winter" line or the debunked "volcanoes" one on or the "sun's doing it" or "all the planets in the solar system are warming" canards either. Oh yeah and you can leave out the highly localised "Medieval Warm Period" LOL too.
You haven't researched this very much have you?
>The fact is that deniers have never presented any credible evidence or data to back their claims. What we have only ever got from deniers is cherry picked pieces of data designed to prove a desired outcome, which runs against the evidence from which its taken and outright lies - all of which have been debunked.
The onus is NOT on US to disprove YOUR fantasy. Jeesh.
>But carry on as you were, we're all laughing and cheering you on whilst you delude yourself that you know more on the topic of climate than all of the world's top scientists.
Nice Rant. Not impressed by those scientists any more. I think you will find I am not alone.
Mr McIntyre did not 'catch' Mr Hansen doing anything "last year"; in 2007 he noted a Y2K error in the US dataset affecting some of the stations which led to modest corrections. He was acknowledged for his efforts. The corrections made very little difference to the global trend.
A claim for "the worst scientific scandal of our generation" sounds like the very hyperbole that Booker accuses scientists of delivering.
We need more than hyperbole from Mr Booker and Mr Delingpole;we need acknowledgement that opinion writers should not pose as authorities unless they are willing to reference and cite the material on which they base their claims.
Credibility Lost
Once lost it can never return. Which is bad news for CRU, GISS and Al Gore etc.
However it is very good news for those of us who seek the truth.
The climate models are the work of the people who have just lost their credibility.
Therefore, the climate models are finished in their current format.
Now a new debate can begin. The difference being CRU,GISS and Al Gore etc. will not be part of it.
A few posters have asked if there is a method of measuring the Earth's average temperature without involving those people who have just lost there credibility.
The answer is yes there is. There are a number of websites which provide data for sea ice coverage in the arctic and antarctic.
This is it. If the earth is warming sea ice decreases and vice versa.
Good news is it can't be fiddled, fudged, manipulated or fabricated.
There are records dating back to 1979 and for me are the only reliable measurement of temperature available.
Websites:-
Japanese Space Agency:-
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
National Snow an Ice data Centre
(University of Colorado)
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/daily.html
Cryosphere Today - University of Illinois
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
There have been issues on some sites with data outages and crossover between satellites, so best policy is to review data from as many sites as possible.
thefuterisvegan 10.47.
Well Mr Vegan here is little bit of research you can do for yourself........tell the net by how much sea levels have risen in say Vanuatu and Aberdeen in the last 80 years....oops I forgot, the land is rising :-)
Lady Muck @ 8:41 AM, 29 Nov.
I am a Scientist (Applied Physics) and an Engineer so I will try to provide brief answers, as requested.
1) Combustion of fossil fuels adds a trivial amount of heat to Earth in comparison with the incoming Solar Heat so the burning is not the problem.
Warmists believe that CO2 et al trap more of that Solar Radiation (by re-radiating in the infra-red part of the spectrum). Some Scientists dispute that CO2 is important in this respect but most do not.
However, all the 2 to 6 deg C Reports that you read are predictions from Models (based on supposed feedbacks) which are given a certainty which I know from my own work in Modelling much simpler physical processes is spurious. Temps were well predicted from late 50s to mid 90s but the Model Predictions seem to be much less reliable since then. This may be a blip but some Scientists think that it is because the Models do not include Oceanic Currents, Solar etc. correctly and are therefore giving us the wrong answers.
2) I agree that we should conserve Fossil Fuels to reduce depletion rates and also the associated pollution. It is bonkers to use Oil for heating and transport when it will be much harder to replace as a Lubricant or Petrochemical Feedstock.
3) I would think that many, probably a majority, of Climate Scientists think that there is a genuine problem. However this topic provides a perfect launching pad for others with their own Agenda.
Politicians like Power and AGW will allow them to dictate our lives to a previously-un undreamed extent in peacetime.
Some Greens are closet human-haters and AGW chimes in with their not-very-well-hidden Agenda.
Some Companies and Institutions see a chance for advancement if AGW can be supposed to be true.
A similar type of arguement (perhaps to a lesser extent) can be made on the Denialist side of this Debate. One reason why there is so much sound and fury, IMHO.
I'm sorry Chris old son, but the real scandal is the way Big Oil has managed to convince so many people that we haven't hit peak oil yet. That we can continue in the same old profligate way as if the economic tsunami will never hit us. How you are so consumed with dislike of 'Green' politics that you put your fingers in your ears
Peace & love
Enough of this 'Climategate', how about 'Mann Made Global Warming'. Looks like this is news in the UK & USA, but so far it hasn't made much of an impact in Aus. Don't get too excited by the Liberals that resigned, they were more worried about introducing an ETS before Copenhagen, however there were some honest Pollies like Jensen in my electorate (Tanganey, WA) that have been outspoken on this issue, and been vilified, only just keeping his seat.
But the lie has now been exposed.
Hockey stick?
It isn't rocket science. The planet is warming that is a fact and the only factor that can account for this is the production of greenhouse gases. Both quantities have been measured and both are increasing and both correlate with each other, Duh!
Quibbling about hockey sticks is a distraction by sophists who don't want to take any action.
Remember the hole in the ozone layer, only global action to ban CFC's cured that problem.
Global warming is a fact and we have the means to do something about it and we should because if we don't it will be dire for future generations.
If you are in a car heading towards a cliff edge do you apply the brake or pray to God to do it for you?
John Small writes: "The laws of thermodynamics are quite clear on the effects of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere. If you add extra insulation to stop heat flowing from a warm place to a cold place, the warm place stays warmer.
Would Mr Booker please explain why the laws of thermodynamics no longer apply to the Earth's atmosphere."
John, why don't you have insulation 50 feet thick on your hot water tank (apart from the fact it wouldn't fit in the cupboard, that is)? Because the more insulation you add, the less extra effect each extra layer as there's not much escaping heat left to stop.
Nobody (except the gullible making strawman arguments) is saying that CO2 is not an insulator (though it's a radiative one and not a conductive one, something else you don't seem too clear on). It's just that once you've got a certain amount, adding more really makes sod all difference because it's already stopping all it can at the frequencies where it absorbs.
So far, that's fact, and thermodynamics alone can create only very moderate warming. To create catastrophic warming, you have to invent positive feedbacks of the sort that the Earth has mysteriously managed to avoid every time it's been this hot and/or had this much CO2 in its past.
Got it now? Thermodynamics = fact. Catastrophic warming = pure speculation based on models. Which don't work.
Whether or not the world is warming is not really the point. The world has warmed and then cooled again in the past. Is it not an undisputed fact that the Medieval warm period was warmer than it is now? Was that caused by man or was it just a natural climatic occurrence? The troubling thing at the moment is the fact that so-called scientists at the University of East Anglia’s CRU have found it necessary to fudge data, deny data to other scientists and belittle anyone who disagrees with them. If the data is as sound as they claim there should be no need to massage it. I always thought that it was normal practice for scientists to share data. That way if there was a problem with their conclusions it would be addressed and if other scientists agreed with their findings this would reinforce their knowledge. Mind you according to some scientists now they don’t have to tell the truth. The philosopher Jerome R Ravetz has written this heartening stuff.
“…the puzzle-solving approach of ‘normal science’ is obsolete. This is a drastic cultural change for science, which many scientists will find difficult to accept. But there is no turning back; we can understand post-normal science as the extension of democracy appropriate to the conditions of our age.
For us, quality is a replacement for truth in our methodology. We argue that this is quite enough for doing science, and that truth is a category with symbolic importance, which itself is historically and culturally conditioned.”
Finally, to smear other scientists is quite unnecessary and in really bad taste. What sort of people are they? For instance to describe the death of another scientist that you disagree with as “cheering news” and in another case meeting a fellow scientist at a conference wanting to “beat the crap out him”, to express these remarks whether privately or publicly is just disgusting. Now they have finally agreed to release their data - hooray! But wait , don’t get too excited, ‘it may take several months to gain the necessary agreements to release the data’. By which time everything will be nicely signed, sealed and put in place - yippee! And we’ll all be stuffed!
Risk Analysis/Assessment and simply gathering unquestionable evidence. Thats evidence that can be taken to high court and not demolished in any way. Wherever data or records exist within evidence they will have an origin and a path to their present state. The origin and the traversal from any state must be independently verified. A very high level of trust and security must be established.
As a recently retired Safety Consultant I can state that in the last 5 years I have experienced great difficulty in both the gathering of adequate data/information and obtaining formal verification. This is about military systems.
As far as I and colleagues are concerned any amount of looseness in communication, emotional language or mis management of evidence would lead to a certain termination of services and/or project restart. Failure here leads to catastrophic events to which formal risk assessment would have identified. Current financial failure and agressive activies clearly suffer from my recent experiences.
The subject of Climate Change does appear to be heading the same way. I do not believe that enough is known about the Earths systems for a properly reasoned argument to be presented. Panic, posturing and emotional noise do not constitute a case for massive action. Produce genuine and verifiable evidence or simply go away.
The key fact is that CO2 is heavier than air. Therefore it cannot accumulate in the sky, and cause "global warming".
http://www.iceagenow.com/If_the_canary_is_still_singing_we_are_okay.htm
The manipulation scientific evidence and the suppression of open debate in the media in an attempt coerce the electorate into accepting political initiatives that would not otherwise be countenanced are crimes against personal freedom and democracy.
It is yet further evidence that the political and media elite are out of control.
It is time for the man and women in the street join together to demand the TRUTH and rid themselves of these charlatans
I'm not too clear as to the relevance of the nationality-related comments made by Walt O'Brien (10:47), but maybe a couple of refinements are in order:
1. Westinghouse was indeed "a UK firm" when it was sold a few year ago, but the majority purchaer was Japanese )Toshiba) - the "American company" mentioned in the report is just a 20%-owner, but acting as agent for the group.
2. In case this is relevant, one might also note that the original American owners had sold the company (as it was then constituted) to the UK just a few years earlier.
Whether or not the world is warming is not really the point. The world has warmed and then cooled again in the past. Is it not an undisputed fact that the Medieval warm period was warmer than it is now? Was that caused by man or was it just a natural climatic occurrence? The troubling thing at the moment is the fact that so-called scientists at the University of East Anglia’s CRU have found it necessary to fudge data, deny data to other scientists and belittle anyone who disagrees with them. If the data is as sound as they claim there should be no need to massage it. I always thought that it was normal practice for scientists to share data. That way if there was a problem with their conclusions it would be addressed and if other scientists agreed with their findings this would reinforce their knowledge. Mind you according to some scientists now they don’t have to tell the truth. The philosopher Jerome R Ravetz has written this heartening stuff.
“…the puzzle-solving approach of ‘normal science’ is obsolete. This is a drastic cultural change for science, which many scientists will find difficult to accept. But there is no turning back; we can understand post-normal science as the extension of democracy appropriate to the conditions of our age.
For us, quality is a replacement for truth in our methodology. We argue that this is quite enough for doing science, and that truth is a category with symbolic importance, which itself is historically and culturally conditioned.”
Finally, to smear other scientists is quite unnecessary and in really bad taste. What sort of people are they? For instance to describe the death of another scientist that you disagree with as “cheering news” and in another case meeting a fellow scientist at a conference wanting to “beat the crap out him”, to express these remarks whether privately or publicly is just disgusting. Now they have finally agreed to release their data - hooray! But wait , don’t get too excited, ‘it may take several months to gain the necessary agreements to release the data’. By which time everything will be nicely signed, sealed and put in place - yippee! And we’ll all be stuffed!
"Already one respected US climate scientist, Dr Eduardo Zorita, has called for Dr Mann and Dr Jones to be barred from any further participation in the IPCC."
This call has also been made by another respected climate scientist Dr. Hans von Storch, Professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg, Director of the Institute of Coastal Research, GKSS Research Centre, Geesthacht, Germany, Member of the advisory boards of the journals Journal of Climate and Annals of Geophysics.
He was referred to in the Climategate emails.
One Tom Wigley wrote that von Storch was partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. He further wrote that they (the hockey stick team) should tell the publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation and whether this is true or not doesn’t matter. Wrote that they need to get editorial board to resign and they need to get rid of von Storch too.
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=307&filename=1051190249.txt
And they were successful in getting rid of the editor and Von Storch.
Thanks Goodness this is all coming out beofre Copenhagen. But will our scientifically illiterate politicians listen to the skeptics? Not a hope in hell. They are wedded to the new authoritarianism where climate change has replaced socialism as the cause that is used to enchain the great unwashed.
Climate change has become the new religion/cause and skeptics are treated the same as the victims at the salem witch trails, to be burned at the stake.
As a one time scientist, I am not surprised by scientific doctoring in order to 'prove' what is need for the next grant. I saw the corruption of science as a way of life in the US defence industry in the 1960s and early 70s. I got out!
With all of their so-called evidence destroyed, how on earth could anyone pass carbon tax legislation at the Copenhagen Summit? I mean, in a court of law one must have support evidence to prove their case. Can anyone enlighten me on that one?
David Welch, I challenge you to find a reputable source of data, which supports the anthropomorphic global warming scare, which isn't contaminated by the touch of climategate.
Of course, you will never admit you were wrong. Your kind never do.
I bet all your anger is directed at the hacker who broke the news, not at the scientists who apparently spent a large part of their careers engaged in fraud.
Is now the opportunity to give everyone visiting this site a chance to vote in the Science Museum’s ‘Prove It’ poll?
You are asked to count yourself ‘In’ or ‘Out’ to the proposition: "I've seen the evidence. And I want the government to prove they're serious about climate change by negotiating a strong, effective, fair deal at Copenhagen."
The poll has been running since late October and is apparently intended to influence Copenhagen. The evidence provided by the Science Museum is clearly designed to obtain an ‘In’ result.
Most embarrassingly for the Science Museum and the government which initiated the project, the poll running result currently (11.36 UTC 29 November) stands at 5405 counted ‘In’ against 7918 counted ‘Out’. Not quite the desired result.
To see what is happening and vote go to:
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx
Helen Barker on November 29, 2009 at 10:35 AM
Good article Helen - anyone who knows the temperature difference between a clear night and a cloudy night should know just how much water vapour contributes - a lot .
The concept of Global Warming is simply a glorious pot of gold that all governments can dip their grubby fingers into and help themselves at our expense. How did the Romans grow vineyards North of Birmingham? Did their chariots emit CO2? Or was it simply the 1500 year cycle as explained clearly in The Great Global Warming Swindle?
"Show me any evidence that the seas are not rising." thefutureisvegan
Er, show us any evidence that the seas *are* rising. Provided that is you exclude the dodgy "adjusted" sea level data where they shifted the entire world sea level in the past downwards on the basis of one dodgy tide gauge! (But they had to do this otherwise they couldn't "create a trend" - and that matters more than science here, doesn't it?).
Some land may be sinking - that's geology, not climate. But the seas are *not* rising by any remotely significant amount. Just one more Big Lie which the suckers fall for.
Dr John Theon (former Head of NASA's weather and Climate Programme)
See attached link to video of a 15 minute speech last year where Dr Theon condemns man made global warming alarmists. for the flawed and exaggerated science being promoted.
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Cinema.htm
Dr John Theon speaking at the 2009 ICCC conference
"I worked as the head of the NASA Weather and Climate Program which included up to 300 scientists in NASA, in academia, and in the private sector... Jim Hansen had... some very powerful political friends. Al Gore was a Senator... and subsequently became Vice President of the US. Now there isn't too much a NASA person can do when he's up against that kind of a challenge... In the early '90's I realized the whole thing was a great big fraud... Recent developments have convinced me that it is my duty to speak out, and to help educate the public about what we're going to get into if we don't stop this nonsense".
Blind Freddy @ 8:22 AM, 29 Nov.
Can you produce your evidence that rising sea levels (actually rising slightly slower now than 50 years ago even though CO2 levels have risen in that time), increased storms etc. are due to CO2.
Floods, in Britain for example, would not have anything to do with the idiots in the Government allowing building on flood planes would it?
Empty River Catchments - would this be related to the fact that human numbers have increased more than 50% in my lifetime and will go up another 50% within 30/40 years? Why is it that the Warmists are not concentrating on that fact - perhaps that would make one a Rascist, Imperialist, Colonialist Running Dog?
Good to see the pressure being kept up. Although CO2 undoubtably contributes to keeping our world at a habitable temperature for us and we are putting more out, thus having some effect, there are other reasons for increasing temperatures.
Professor Pielke Snr's website lists many of the paper that he and his co-workers have produced, that show changes in land use have a big impact too.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/
Other impacts are the way that the stations recording temperatures have been culled from the records, read E.M Smith's work at http://chiefio.wordpress.com/ for a comprehensive look at this.
However, I can't see any government putting resources into investigating this scandal.
None of them will be honest enough to say that there's no real need to tax transportation etc, at such high levels, other than it being a convenient way to raise money, to plug the holes in the economy.
Labour won't do it, because it'll be an admission of their mismanagement & Conservatives won't either, because it'll show that they weren't objecting loudly enough (Or at all!) and as our new EU Premier (What is his name?) just wants the cash to run his empire.
Welldone Telegraph, at last.
Elsewhere The Times is reporting they trashed the raw data in the 1980s. Tom Wigley was the CRU director from 1978-1993 and one of the "small group of scientists" that have promoted the AGW theory. You can read his views and schemes in the data dump emails. Turns out the only data they kept from Wigley's tenor was their "good" fudged data.
Just shows it's always a good idea to destroy the evidence.
DEEP INSIGHTS INTO OUR WORLD
By Leslie Holt Esquire
Women children and the elderly of both genders are being abused disenfranchised from democracy and along with a heavy proportion of men, are no longer in the discourse of democracy.
There is a pretence, certainly of democracy together with a pretend body of politician that say they are listening to the public, but are definitely not, for they are too busy following instructions from on high themselves.
Such is the parasitisation of human life from the manipulative few who have grand designs on farming humanity for profit that people in essence; can expect no help soon from your governments, your politicians.
The scourge within humanity has infiltrated every conceivable professional body in human commerce and now there is no accountability, no real brake to be applied, since people are no longer in control, ‘they’ are.
This manifestation is global. Until mankind awakens to what is happening in their name and put a stop to it. They will be enslaved. It is time to take back responsibility for one’s own health and have a proper say in what happens. It is time to seek out those fascist elements who happen to be the few with the most wealth, the most power globally and who are controlling the media and everything else on the planet. These monsters are the shape shifting manipulators of your reality. These people make the rules that you live by.
Rules that assist them in their endeavours. Not yours? They do this by misinformation and controlling information. It is time to spread the word, to assist people understand. Corruption lies at the heart of Universities, that are usurped by those pulling the strings of Governance globally and nothing is what it seems, for our eyes and minds are denied the truth.
There have been many instances of 'scientists' and research fellows falsifying data to produce results which gain them money and fame , even 'Nobel' prizes.These and many others like them , are now openly seen to have cheated . Yet they remain in situ and the whole merrygoround continues like a giant oil tanker that cannot be turned around.
If you are self-employed , you can withhold your taxes to remonstrate and demonstrate your dissatisfaction with the government , but most of us are on PAYE and cannot do anyting but pay up or starve !
If there is any global warming , it is natural and we all know that. The carbon trading and credits scheme is just tax.
This is a massive kidology and Stalin , Marx and Hitler must be turning in their graves that they didn't think of it first !
Thank you Mr. Booker for helping to expose the MYTH of man-made global-warming.
With this exposure, the scientific communty has been given a bloody nose, the FRAUDSTERS at East Anglia University have now proven all science is now SUSPECT.
Was there ever realy a OZONE problem or did some well placed individuals PROFIT handsomely?
Will we ever know?
If I was a scientist right now, and my profession had just been shown to employ LIARS and PROFITEERS pushing their fraudulant data for personal gain, I would be demanding some heads come off, and right away!
I saw the Channel 4 programme a couple of years back - The Great Global Warming Swindle. Efforts were made to stop the broadcast and when you watched it, you could see why. Several interesting things came out of the programme that would help ordinary people not involved in the science to form an opinion. It became apparent for instance that there is not a scientific consensus or anything like one. In fact there were eminent scientists on the programme complaining that they had been named as supporters of the global warming theory when in fact they weren't. And they weren't just on the fence either; they were totally against the idea that changes in temperature are man made or even could be. If memory serves the real data proves (in as much as it can be proven) that water vapour causes most warming and that CO2 as the villain of the peice is a tiny piece of the jigsaw. The fact that the Global Warming bandwagon has grown into a full blown industry and job creation scheme was also mentioned by these scientists which could explain the ferocity of the Warmist side of the debate; also the reputations now at stake. Chuck in the opportunity to hammer populations with increased taxes (which probably will not be wholly spent on climate projects) and you have a potent mixture of reasons why common sense probably will not prevail and those who spout common sense in the scientific and political communites will be frozen out and silenced. I would urge Channel 4 to show the Great Global Warming Swindle again whilst public interest is arroused by the email scandal; at least people will have the chance to look at both sides of he real debate, as I did.
Hoorah! At long last people are waking up to the truth - that we are being manipulated by an elite scientific group, who have their own agenda, into believing that there is a "crisis" and that we, as human beings, can somehow be able to control the power of nature. What arrogance these men & women are displaying to think that Man can influence it. I listened to the posturing this morning on Andrew Marr's show and one of my immediate thoughts was - where does the Green Party & its supporters think all the money is going to come from to implement their crazy ideas? Has the Green Party & the East Anglian Uni scientists not realised that the world is in the grip of an economic crisis and this and future generations are already burdened with vast amounts of debt so the world cannot afford to implement so called "climate change" policies such as those being promoted at Copenhagen. Each wind turbine costs £1m and produces a mere drop in the ocean of our energy needs.
Thankfully the debate is now out in the open, due to people like Christopher Booker, but I feel sure the multi-billion pound lobby for climate change measures is now so engrained and powerful within the Establishment & Government, that the truth will continue to be suppressed.
Eric West says it as it is.
The whole subject of waste — something we were beginning to address sensibly in the '70s — has been tarred by the Environmentalist brush ; now we shall likely throw out the baby with the bath-water.
~~~~~
"Has anyone worked out the cost of implementing climate change?" asks Simon Marshland.
I have : it's occurs naturally, which it has been doing since the formation of the Earth and will do till the Earth be absorbed by the Sun, and it's free ; unfortunately it attracts enormous rates of tax.
"Do you think it is a coincidence that it is the rich who will be most affected by the conversion to a sustainable economy, but the poor will be the ones to suffer from the effects of environmental change?" - Alexia
What utter hogwash - good grief, THINK, don't just spout warmist propaganda.
Who suffers more if fuel and heating double in price? The banker or the pensioner? Who misses out on their trips to Florida if air taxes become punitive, the lawyer or the working class family? Who suffers more if not allowed to build cheap coal-fired power stations? The rich countries who can afford nuclear and renewables, or the third world striving to build even a basic power grid for hospitals and sanitation? Who suffers more if food prices rise because grain is converted into biofuels, the rich countries or the poor ones?
Capitalist conspiracy theories obviously go down well with a certain audience. But can we at least try and keep the debate here rational?
Christopher,
I can't thank you enough. For years your reports have opened my eyes to the true nature of the European Union, and now you have done the same for this shameful travesty of science.
Rather than commenting on ClimateGate, I'll just point out something that you may find interesting.
The Science Museum has a climate campaign called Prove It! The first thing you notice is that their online opinion poll shows the sceptics in the clear majority, with about 60%
But what I find a bit shocking is this. They make a big thing about 'proof' and provide material that supposedly provides that proof. But in fact the 'proof' is just a series of claims and the usual appeals to authority such as the IPCC. Their material does not present a *single* piece of scientific evidence to prove that the climate is being driven by carbon dioxide.
Chris
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx
On one side, the current members and alumni of the Royal Society of London for the Improvement of Natural Knowledge, the most prestigious science body in the world; on the other, Christopher Dan Brown Walter Mitty Booker, history graduate, jazz critic and founding editor of Private Eye.
Hmm! The defence rests...
Apparentley the BBC is having problems
I happen to be a long term friend and confidant of a BBC new presenter. who phoned me tonight to tell me that there is ”all hell breaking loose” among news producers and presenters at the BBC over the coporation’s censoring of the Climagate story. NB At one meeting Paul Hudson has been told to ’shut up’ by his senior colleague, Roger Harrabin.
A comment from WUWT
Tarquin Fin-Tim-Lim
on November 29, 2009
at 10:27 AM
"Also, she is now against Nuclear power only because it can't be built "in time" to save the planet."
Ahhh! How I chuckle when humans have the arrogance to speak of SAVING THE PLANET
The late, great comedian and social commentator George Carlin performed this piece on SAVING THE PLANET in 1991.
It's absolutely brilliant
www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw
"The planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE!"
For Melville:
"Refusing to release the raw data, the essence of this theory, negates that. So we are left with "believe and trust me"; the credo of every charlatan."
The CRU have now, apparently, agreed to release the data, but I fear it will be the doctored (or should I say "quality controlled") data.
The raw data may have already been destroyed.
It's ironic that East Angular ( and, by association, it's "university" ) was a well-publicised example of Jade Goody's tenuous grasp of geography. Its academics certainly seem to have a similarly tenuous grasp of scientific reality and truthfulness. Perhaps Max Clifford could help - climate change is largely showbiz fantasy, anyway, isn't it......?
What I would like to know is what Richard Dawkins with his new religion - The Church of the Scientific Athiest - is going to do - is he going to deify these climate scientists ? TIC .
UK readers (and USA) should take a look at Andrew Bolt blog for similar coverage. We speak english in Australia too. cheers.
John Francis
on November 29, 2009
at 10:16 AM
Yes I totally agree with you .. how the climate change advocates are total flat earth society members .. completely unwilling to open their eyes to any evidence to the contrary.
Don't worry .. the world is round and they will find out soon enough !
There is a fourth point. The "scientists" are presenting correlation between rise in temperatures and CO2 emissions as evidence of causal link contrary to accepted scientific principle - because it is all they have - whilst ignoring lack of correlation (11 years no temperature rise) which is accepted evidence of no causal link.
This is why they have such a need to manipulate the data to show correlation.
It is easy to see how they can pass off correlation as evidence to the blithering idiots in Government, but what of other scientists outside climate sciences - why are they silent on a basic point fo science?
Lady Muck (trust no-one) 8.41 am
Good questions.
1) No reason I can think of.
2) No reason I can think of.
3) Celebrity, fame, funding, more celebrity.
Husbandry of our resources is always wise whether the earth is warming or cooling, however, celebrity seems to override most concerns these days. Everybody wants there five minutes of fame and scientists and politicians are no different. History tells us that. History also tells us that the earth warms and cools over millenia, not over a century.
Most importantly, Mother Nature is a Law unto Herself. When She tires of our company we will be dispatched, as other species have been dispatched in the past. Ce Sera.
If, over the next few years, the climate does indeed show a cooling trend obvious even to the most fervant, green sandalistas, will not the politicians merely take this as proof that their taxation and other finance extracting/freedom destroying policies are working?
Caspar Weinberger, former US Defense Secretary (Reagan Administration) knew it as early as 1981, other politicians will follow soon:
>>I will not become a prisoner to abstract models, nor will I try to quantify the unquantifiable. Those analysts on my staff will not serve as advocates or initiators.<<
Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology, February 2, 1981, Page 9
Old Nick:"There is little point in an atheist having a conversation with a religious person about whether god exists if the religious person refuses to consider evidence, proof, reason.
Similarly, a conversation between a scientist and a climate change denier is pretty worthless if one side doesn't consider evidence, proof, reason."
If you want a clue as to which side of an argument has the more force look for the side that tries to associate its opponents with the murder of millions of people and you'll find the weakest argument.
You want the "evidence" here are some things everyone agrees on:
1. The climate has always changed and always will regardles of the inhabitants of the earth;
2. CO2 is a green house gas, and does cause some heat to be trapped;
3. The density of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen by 100ppm in the last 200 years or so, almost certainly humans have contributed to that. It now stands at 388 parts per million;
4. The annual human contribution to GHGs is less than 1% of the total (assuming that CO2 is 18% and humans contribute 5% of the CO2) the rest is natural;
5. There is no historical geological evidence that CO2 has a unique influence on temperature.The only relationship between CO2 and temperature in the geological records is that CO2 appears to increase in the atmosphere around 800 - 1200 years after a warm period;
6. The was a medaeival warm period, and it was most likely warmer than today.
7. Recent temperatures have remained more or less in stasis, the RSS aggregated temperatures since 1979 show a slight (-0.025C) drop in global temperatures;
8. During this period the CO2 has risen in the atmosphere baffling even the warmist camp;
9. CO2 is not a pollutant it is a key gas in the formation of life on the planet and increasing it will increase the growth of plant life on the planet.
10. As the earth warms the polar regions will warm more than the tropics which will remain around the same as they are now. This will lead to benign weather because of the decrease in the temperature gradient between the poles and the tropics;
9. If the CO2 in the atmosphere doubled from today's levels to say 790ppm the increase in temperature using the stefan-boltzmann black box equation will be between 0.5C and 1.2C, the doomsday scenarios are based on models which aren't even set to the current observed state.
That anyone in the know is still a sceptic at all shows remarkable tolerance to the views of these scientists.
""But what would the motivation be for these wonderful, green dcientists be? After all, they are not working for the oil industry (The Norwegian Socialism is financed by burning fossile fuel), so they have no motivation! Dear, oh dear, this is just a panic action from the Oil Industry to stop the Copenhagen summit"."
"Professor" Phil Jones and his deadbeats at the CRU are all earning excellent salaries and enjoy prestige and power because they jumped on the Global Warming bandwagon, Kwik.
Don't expect people with mortgages to pay and children to send to private school to kill the goose that's laying all the golden eggs, Kwik.
And all of this would be found where on the print edition of the Telegraph? I'm betting well past the front page.
Yes Mr Booker, the second worst scandal was where the scientists and media learned and perfected their dark arts.
A perfect storm of fear, hysteria, opportunism and greed stoked by generous research grants and gullible politicians. This was of course the dioxin/agent orange debacle which we all know now as having very little substance.
To wayne at 8.49
Just back from the newsagents with my Sunday Telegraph, It's a cold wet November day and the leaves are nearly all off the trees. Give it another week and they'll all be down and winter will be here proper, right on cue i'd say.
I am not a climate sceptic, but I think it is very clear that the scientific method has let us down, compromised by human fallibility.
If human-induced climate change is real and action is required, it is the next 2-4 years which will be crucial in determining politically how that will happen.
That is the window the scientists have got to get their act together, before serious attempts to reduce emissions start to become very noticeable.
If they do not get their act together and improve the impartiality of their inquiry, they cannot expect the public to give attempts to reduce emissions credibility and support.
They have let us down.
@ Lady Muck 8.41 et al
Interesting that Lady Muck raised reasonable questions, and within 2 hours has three responders trying politely to provide answers. Interesting also that all agreed that making more sensible use of fossil fuels was desirable.
If only the whole debate could be conducted in this fashion, rather than this from Old Nick 09:55 AM: "Similarly, a conversation between a scientist and a climate change denier is pretty worthless if one side doesn't consider evidence, proof, reason."
Love the assumption that there are no scientist 'deniers' and that the use of such a deliberately insulting term as 'denier' is permissable.
I try to be open-minded, but I recognise which 'side' argues with religious fervour.
It would seem that Politicians are not the only group of people trying to lose credibility with the Public
Thank you thank you.
Now at last the scientists who have not previously realized that "something is rotten in the state of Denmark" are starting to realize. I hope your next article will help them to call for the firing of all the heads of scientific bodies and magazines who have been suppressing all sceptical dissent and making it so hard for MSM to see through the scam.
So you have some emails in which a climate change denier is colourfully derided and some banter used by scientists when working on stats, like "applying the trick". Such a phrase is commonly used by scientists when preparing data for critical analysis.
What you deniers have is nothing but, as ever, you'll huff and puff and bluster with ridiculous headlines, like the above, about the criminally obtained emails for all you're worth.
What I'd like to see is even one line of data in reference to any evidence that a denier can muster which in any respect whatsoever can disprove Anthropogenic Global Warming theory.
Show me any evidence that the planet is cooling. Show me any evidence that the poles and glaciers across the planet aren't in rapid retreat. Show me any evidence that CO2 can't heat the atmosphere and that only relatively small changes aren't enough to tip a delicate balance. Show me any evidence that the seas are not rising.
Please don't try the "we've just had a cold winter" line or the debunked "volcanoes" one on or the "sun's doing it" or "all the planets in the solar system are warming" canards either. Oh yeah and you can leave out the highly localised "Medieval Warm Period" LOL too.
The fact is that deniers have never presented any credible evidence or data to back their claims. What we have only ever got from deniers is cherry picked pieces of data designed to prove a desired outcome, which runs against the evidence from which its taken and outright lies - all of which have been debunked.
But carry on as you were, we're all laughing and cheering you on whilst you delude yourself that you know more on the topic of climate than all of the world's top scientists.
Here's the latest word on new nuk plants for the UK, as of 26 Nov 2009. Get this: Westinghouse, a UK firm, is sold three years ago to an American group, so guess who is bidding for UK reactor and turnkey plant supply?
http://www.energyglobal.com/sectors/renewable-energy/articles/westinghouse_nuclear_reactors.aspx
And HMG complains about the damage house-flipping has done to the economy.
The nice bit is we Yanks are signing on to 80% UK manufacturing content, and of course UK engineering and contracting. Watch out with a contracting firm named O'Rourke, though. Those Irish are pretty dodgy characters! :>) Argh. Aye.
The true tragedy is that the Climate Change debate has buried a common sense discussion on pollution. I think most people accept the idea that needless litter, for instance, is a bad thing. By the same logic, pumping toxic gas into the environment can never be a social good. it is obviously in all our interest to work towards a cleaner planet. All the discussion about global warming just obfuscates the debate - the bad science seems utterly needless and has been hopelessly counter productive. Worse still, the hysterical doom mongering has made the debate ridiculous. By my reckoning we have passed at least a dozen "points of no return" for climate change in the last decade - at some point all the squealing has become redundant. The solutions for pollution have also been slanted towards first CFCs and now CO2, a particular narrow response to a very broad issue that means that we are investing in technology that fixes on problem by creating a potentially worse one or on technologies of limited value like wind farms which will never make a meaningful contribution to our society.
The whole debate has become surreal, hijacked by a narrow interest group who are putting us all at risk through their use of fear tactics and fraud.
Magisterial stuff, Christopher.
The BBC website is reporting the Climategate story, of course, but mainly concentrating on the scandalous breach of security and 'theft' of data at UEA. Absolutely incredible; is there no bottom to the shamelessness of these people?
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." - H. L. Menken
What a fantastic quotation!
Do you think it is a coincidence that it is the rich who will be most affected by the conversion to a sustainable economy, but the poor will be the ones to suffer from the effects of environmental change?
For reference on how science REALLY works, including this case.
See HERE:
http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=886
AND:
"This is how it works: you put your model out there in the coliseum, and a bunch of guys in white coats kick the shit out of it. If it’s still alive when the dust clears, your brainchild receives conditional acceptance. It does not get rejected. This time."
Got it yet?
There's a funny picture of Clippit which makes fun of this issue. Click on this: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_V4T-lZ6_JEc/Sw9MVcVxIbI/AAAAAAAAAR4/wV1yEVvulkI/s400/clippy.jpg
Has anyone worked out the cost of implementing climate change?
Lady Muck: I sympathise with your thoughts. A problem which seems to be singular is always more puzzling when it turns out to be more than one contentious idea conflated with others. This is the case here. Try Googling "the Skeptics Handbook" for an excellent explanation of the debate. It is written by Joanne Nova who describes herself as "a veteran believer inthe greenhouse gas crisis, 1990 to 2007". It sounds not only as though she knows what she is talking about, but can present the logic of the argument briefly and fairly.
You won't be disappointed!
David Welch
on November 28, 2009
at 08:43 PM
"Why should they release data which has cost millions to collect..."
Indeed they need not, but I am a simple soul and believe that the whole marvel of science is that any theory produced can be confirmed by other scientists repeating the experiment.
Refusing to release the raw data, the essence of this theory, negates that. So we are left with "believe and trust me"; the credo of every charlatan.
@ John Small
'The idea that the laws of thermodynamics are part of a media scam to extract research grants from government and enslave ordinary people seems not quite right.'
Nobody is arguing about the Laws of Thermodynamics. Read the article again. What Mr Booker is saying, correctly in my opinion, is that the Philip Jones and his team are
1. Manipulating raw data with dodgy code to get the output they need.
2. Trying to hide that fact from the outside world.
3. Manipulating the peer review process.
Please explain how this has anything to do with the Laws of Thermodynamics not working correctly.
Yesterday I read this article on the greenhouse gas effect. I recommend it because it addresses the central question of what is our contribution to the greenhouse effect?
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
When you get to the end, you will discover that water vapour contributes 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect. Man-made contributions are 0.28% (of which 0.117% is our CO2 contribution). The rest comes from natural non-water vapour greenhouse gases (including all the other CO2).
In broad graphic terms our CO2 is 1 pane of glass in a 1,000 paned greenhouse.
This article does not talk about all the other possible causes of climate variation, nor does it discuss the climate change observed on other planets in our solar system. But then neither do the "it's our CO2 emissions period" brigade.
Our politicians should take a tip from King Canute; accept the facts and use our money responsibly to help those affected. Oh yes, and perhaps we could spend more energy reducing our genuine polluting practices, and less on dishonest deceivers who think the truth is an irrelevant consideration in the formation of environmental policy.
Some time ago I saw the channel 4 program 'The great global warming swindle' A program that many left leaning politicians and supporters of 'Man made global warming' tried to stop from being shown. No wonder, as the program explained in clear language, the valid point of view, that the data and statistics where being misread to suit a particular point of view. It is easy to see how governments of many shades would support the theory of 'Man made global warming' it gives them license to raise taxes. I hope that Christopher Booker and the Telegraph can raise this subject to the point where an unbiased world wide sientific debate can take place
pete young
Netley Abbey
Hampshire
Yes, I suppose that climate is changing but hasn't that been true for thousands of years. For example North Africa was fertile about 10,000 years ago when ice covered practically the whole of UK, was the worlds population at that time producing vast amounts of carbon dioxide I don't think so. We need to bring some sense into this debate. Using scaremongering tactics to further the arguments put forth by the AGW fanatics is self defeating, the UK populace is much more discerning than they give us credit for.
No, Christopher, there are four, not three, shocking threads to this story. The fourth thread - which is also the most important - is the revelation that much of the raw data underpinning the CRU analysis is in a state of chaos and completely unreliable.
Because this issue is a bit geeky, it's being overlooked by non-geeky commentators. In the long term it will prove to be the really devastating smoking gun. The other issues, serious though they are, allow these scientists an escape route; they can (and do) say that the emails don't change the fact that there's dangerous global warming. This fourth issue - which can be found in the documents relating to Ian "Harry" Harris - bolts the escape hatch. If the data's no good, everything based on it - worldwide - has to be binned.
It also explains in a delightfully human way why they were so desperate to keep it under wraps. Like Andre Agassi and his wig, they were embarrassed.
Interestingly, Caroline Lucas moved the goalposts on the Andrew Marr programme this morning. Apparently the fact that temperatures have not increased over the last ten years is a "blip" and only the record of the last one hundred years should be considered.
Also, she is now against Nuclear power only because it can't be built "in time" to save the planet.
It does seem the green lobby are becoming increasingly desperate in their arguments.
There is no doubt that man is increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, but is it this which has caused the alledged warming, or could it be the Sun might just have something to do with it.
Where's global warming when you need it?
There's dense hail falling right now.
It's going to be a brute of a winter.
I just want to say a hearty thanks to Christopher Booker, for such a clear description of the key issues.
This is such a critically important matter, that people need to be informed about it. This essay makes a great contribution to that end.
It appears that Nick Griffin will represent the EU at Copenhagen:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/nick-griffin-bnp-copenhagen-summit
What do we think about that, lads and lassies? A denier at the conference - a dream come true?
Hello,
I live in Norway. Here, it is almost complete silence in all medias about Climategate. The only response in the media is that this "leak" is probably the result of a criminal act resulting in private emails being exposed. Which again is something of a unpolite thing to do.
If I talk about Climategate to AGW followers here in Norway, the respons is;
"But what would the motivation be for these wonderful, green dcientists be? After all, they are not working for the oil industry (The Norwegian Socialism is financed by burning fossile fuel), so they have no motivation! Dear, oh dear, this is just a panic action from the Oil Industry to stop the Copenhagen summit".
So, there you have it. Maybe, Christopher, you can give us a background on the motivation? I suspect I know it myself, but then again, who am I to say?
Behind all this are the other gravy train riders, the LSE and Imperial Grantham crowd who make up our Climate Change Committee. Nicholas Stern, head of LSE Grantham, who is promoting carbon legislation and is a consultant on....carbon legislation: Link:
http://www.ideacarbon.com/advisors/index.htm, or Dr Sam Fankhauser of the Climate Change Committee: http://www.ideaglobal.com/corporate/sam_fankhauser.html
Have a look at http://www.globeinternational.org/, whose president is Mr Stephen Byers MP.
GLOBE facilitates high level negotiated policy positions from leading legislators from across the G8+5 parliaments and from regional dialogues which are informed by business leaders and key international experts.
GLOBE's objective is to support ambitious political leadership on issues of climate and energy security, land-use change and ecosystems and economic and population growth.
Internationally, GLOBE is focussed on progressive leadership from G8 leaders and the leaders of the major emerging economies as well as formal negotiations within the United Nations. GLOBE has a particular interest in the role that International Financial Institutions can play.
GLOBE shadows the formal G8 negotiations and allows legislators to work together outside the formal international negotiations.
Without the burden of formal governmental negotiating positions, legislators have the freedom to push the boundaries of what can be politically achieved.
In the light of so much dubious, suspect and manipulative informaton coming out of the academic community we should revive the term ALCHEMIST to describe those who have a theory and then select only the data which supports it, discarding and discrediting any that questions it. Dr. Jones and his colleagues could be joined by Dr. Dawkins etc. British acedemic and intellectual life seems to need a good clean out. We have too many people determined to change gold into lead.
As a fervent supporter of the commonsense fact that climate change is natural and that nothing we puny animals can do anything about I pose the question: Why does the remainder of the press/TV, etc. not mention 'Climategate'? ANSWER: Because the controlling force in world media is Rupert Murdoch and he is a permanent member of the Bilderberg Group who control the world through media and politics.
And to demonstrate its power: Guess who was a lead speaker at their latest meeting? The surprising choice (after that event) of the new President of Europe (van Rompuy) a very determined man who will bring to the fore the long-term plan of the EUSSR to disestablish its member countries to create an homogeneous mass of people controlled 100% directly by Brussels (NOT the European Parliament, a rubber-stamping back office), He already intends to create a direct Income Tax on all Europeans.
So, Cameron, if you DO have any guts give the UK a referendum on leaving the EU within 50days of being elected.
At least you weren't invited to the Group, only Osborne.
Remember people, the previous prime ministers, including Brown, were invited to meet the Group BEFORE thsy took up the post: Heath, Thatcher, Major, Blair - makes you think, Yes!
The chances of a truly independent inquiry are remote, as they always are. There is too much money and power at stake.
The global warming movement is heavily financed by the banking cartel and they stand to lose out big time if it is shown that the whole thing has been widely exaggerated. Who do you think Al Gore works for?
Yes and all the while this scandal runs and runs, politicians including our own deluded Prime Minister is ignoring the whole sorry business and calling for drastic and unrealistic cuts in CO2. Also, this man who has completely ruined our economy, is demanding a multibillion dollar packet to help developing countries follow the same stupid path as us. But what is more worrying is that David Cameron and his energy and climate change front bencher, Greg Clark are saying exactly the same thing.
Many of us have suspected this scullduggery for years but have been howled down and compared to Nazi sympathisers by political class. I remember that awful Margaret Beckett saying that climate change deniers should be treated as terrorists and refused air time.
The world has been fooled by the IPCC for years and politicians have all jumped on the band wagon and are now in no position to admit the fraud without looking utterly stupid. But, of course they are stupid.
Maybe I'm just stupid but can someone please explain to me:
1. How global temperatures were recorded 1000 years ago?
2. How the size of both ice caps were measured, say, 250 years ago?
3. How the amount of ice reaching the sea from the world's glaziers was estimated, say 250 years ago?
As far as I'm concerned, man has only very recently, (in history of the earth terms) been interested enough and has had the ability, to actually want to invent instruments and recording devices in order to be in a position to record ANY temperatures, let alone Global temperatures.
With all the scientific brains available today I think it is high time someone came up with a reliable bullshit meter with which to test any new scientific claims, particularly any that are likely to cause massive amounts of money to be wasted.
Oh, and one final point.
Politicians should be kept as far away as possible from any scientific research.
Every time Mr Booker mentions climate change I am reminded of the Flat Earth Society advert that used to appear in the back of the New Statesman fifty years ago.
I would say any government policy based on data known to be fraudulent would also be considered fraudulent and would mean governments still pushing that now fraudulent policy would be potentially liable for prosecution
twawki
At last, one of the most prominent "Nay-sayers" on Golbal
Warming has produced incontrovertible evidence that the whole scam is nothing more than what I would call, a fraud.
Some years ago, two or three at least, I questioned some report about climate change from the Anglia Uni'. The report was part of an article in the Eastern Daily Press and I pointed out that only a hundred or two years ago, Greenland was Hay Making every autum, it was a farming community and then the ice came south from the North Pole. This is what happens when politics goes off the rails. Or has not learnt any history.
It is not a case of Global Warming we need to worry about, it is Westminster and Whitehall. They are both, well past their sell-by-date. Can we find room for the lot of them in some "Land-Fill Site?"
Failing that join me in changing the system of Governance and place responibility for Law, Taxation and Public Service Funding, at the door of every County Council Authority. At least they will be handy if you want to question them. Kind Regards,
ATFlynn,"Norfolk's Mutineer"
Thank you Christopher for being almost the only source of information and comment in the UK on the climate fraud.
It’s a pity that The Telegraph has such a Jekyll & Hyde attitude on the subject and that much of your good work is often neutralized by the propaganda writings of Leane, Gray et al. Don’t the editors ever read the response to the numerous articles on both sides which show a massive majority of its readers don’t believe the AGW rubbish and that the Telegraph is doing a great disservice not only to truth, but to the opinions and interests of its own readership and the interests of the UK and society as a whole?
Perhaps in view of these latest revelations, you will now be allowed to report on that other great scandal emanating from the same institution, the UEA CRU and on which you have been noticeably silent, the “One Tree” Briffa saga.
Great article. Keep it up, Booker!
Thank you for a very fine article mr. Booker. Some question comes to my mind though. If in case they sacked professor Phil Jones here and now( which I would find to be quite in order)would it not be more difficult to reach an agreement in Copenhagen then?
A lot of additional noise would be created then because it would broadly be taken as proof of the skeptics being right in claiming that something is seriously wrong about the whole climate enterprise coming out from CRU. Just a thought ...
If there's one thing that this economic crisis has done is it's given us the time to look around , scratch our bums , and have a think . And what we've seen is dishonest politicians , incompetent economists , very unsafe banks , and the World going to ruin . Now we have fraudelent scientists , surprise surprise , in league with the dishonest politicians , surprise surprise , and ripping off more and more of our money , surprise surprise .
If there is one thing that we must learn from all this it is that we have to keep a close eye on a lot of people - people we would normally trust to do their job .
wayne
on November 29, 2009
at 08:49 AM
They are called 'The Seasons' dear.
The start of spring is always marked at Easter by the moving of carefully nurtured tomato plants outside and it then snows overnight.
I realise it might just be symbolism, but why are you showing a photograph of cooling towers in the caption it's non polluting steam rising from them, it is not smoke.
Pictures and footage like this are often shown prior to these debates.
This, as many other recent world political scandals' is a case of the lunatics taking over the asylum.
Far too much time, money and symbolic oil has been wasted on the 'squeaky hinges' and now some common sense must prevail.
World Governments are all guilty to some extent firstly they must get replanting the rain forests that have been ripped from the earth all over the globe then some equilibrium might be re-established. By their very nature Trees absorb carbon, that is what they are made of.
In 1992 during the first world climate conference in South American i was working on a building refurbishment project in London for the British government. Ironically the contractors were nailing Brazilian ply wood to the floors of the old building to make them level. Nothing has changed !
Now Al Gore has been 'outed' will his 'peace prize' be also reclaimed.
I read he had to flee from a book signing in Chicago last week, that's what i call progress on climate change.
Thank you for a very fine article mr. Booker. Some question comes to my mind though. If in case they sacked professor Phil Jones here and now( which I would find to be quite in order)would it not be more difficult to reach an agreement in Copenhagen then?
A lot of additional noise would be created then because it would broadly be taken as proof of the skeptics being right in claiming that something is seriously wrong about the whole climate enterprise coming out from CRU. Just a thought ...
Charles Lee: There were no scientists or geographers either inside the church or out, who told the people that the earth was flat. Nor was it ever church doctrine that the earth was flat. The Ptolemaic worldview was certainly wrong about the sun orbiting the earth, but it was absolutely correct about the earth being round. Check your facts and actually read a bit of history before making such ridiculous assertions.
Odd how my post supporting the article was not posted.
Perhaps it was because I asked that a certain newspaper carry out such great length publications on this subject as it has on another.
The difference here is that the cost of inadequate scientific debate will cost hundreds of billions of pounds, not a few million.
Lady Muck (08:41AM)
I have a scientific background, 'though not in climate. I am, however, better able to understand scientific debate than some.
To your questions:
1. A brief answer is impossible in the terms you state. Many factors come into play.
2. It would probably be prudent to restict the use of fossil fuels, and for many reasons not necessarily linked to as yet unproven man-made global warming.
3. I will descend to the level of the cynic and point out that these people are on the public payroll and have a vested interest in prolonging and expanding the MMGW panic.
I remain inconvinced by MMGW as the science supporting it is so often flawed. It is fine for wayne (08:49AM) to tell people to go for a walk. I am old enough to remember cold winters and mild ones, wet summers and dry ones. I have seen records, both scientific and otherwise, describing weather conditions of previous decades and centuries. A few years of mild winters or hot summers can not be considered proof in any scientific sense.
Perhaps our esteemed ex-chancellor should reconsider the name of his new quango...
Global Warming Fallacy Foundation?
Blind Freddy, 8.22 a.m.
A good username in the circumstances - your point about Insurance is NOTHING to do with so-called Climate Change and EVERYTHING to do with the following;-
1.More & more houses being built in flood plains
2.Councils NOT required to clear fallen leaves from the streets(which then go into drains & block them up) - since 1998(funny, that, we had terrible floods in York and district in Nov 2000!!)..
3.Rivers NOT being dredged because of idiotic Greenies on Councils protecting newts..
4.Mass Immigration of people who live several to a home and therefore incur more Insurance breakages etc
5.At least 1m people driving without Insurance, so the law-biding majority have to make up the shortfall..
Etc.,Etc.,Etc....
You WERE right about one thing in your second-rate attempt at irony - it WAS 'NOWT to do with Global Warming' !!
@Lady Muck 08:41 am
1) why all this combustion would not cause the earth to heat up
2)why it would not be prudent to restrict the burning of fossil fuel since isupplies are finite
3) what is the motive of those who have allegedly falsified data to back up thir conspiracy of climate change due to the carbon burning
Q1:
4.37x10**20J, Total World Annual Energy consumption
150×10**20J, the total energy from the Sun that strikes the face of the Earth each day
Energy received from the sun is thus roughly 10,000 times greater than that produced by man. Huge amounts of energy are also transferred to the surface by volcanoes. Man’s puny efforts are invisible on a global scale.
Q2:
Totally agree – but no need to believe in AGW to do this.
Q3:
Money, position and power – as usual
Oh come on Blind Freddy(8:22), the only time sea levels rise is when the tide comes in. Then it falls again when it goes out. Apart from that please provide examples with measurements of any significant rise in sea levels during the last 50 years. Oh and no, Spring tides do not count!
As for climate change, it may well be changing but it was ever thus. Canada used to be covered by ice but then it melted during a significant period of global warming. Long, long, long, before Kyoto, Copenhagen, man-made CO2 emissions, Cap and Trade etc. Until it is scientifically proved otherwise,(not a good week for that aspiration) "man-made" global-warming remains a fanciful hypothesis designed to justify the encroachment of ever more Big Government and more celebrity scientific sinecures.
@ Lady Muck (trust no-one)
on November 29, 2009
at 08:41 AM
Scientists other than the so-called 'climate' ones, such as geologists, palaeontologists, palaeobiologists, archaeologist, historians, chemists, physicists and astronomers have been providing the scientific community with proper data (thats data not fiddled with) based on physical evidence.
These data show that in the course of the 4 billion years or so earth was much warmer, much colder, had different continents, had ice ages, supervolcanoes - and the CO2 was much higher (4000 ppm) during some ice ages.
Earth didn't burn to a cinder then, it didn't become a giant iceball either.
It amazes me that all of a sudden only the last 30 years should somehow be exceptional.
But as even those 'scientists' know (read their e-mails), in the last ten years earth has not warmed further, but cooled - in spite of CO2 increasing a little bit.
I find it very sad that so many people seem to assume that 'denying' AGW means one also 'denies' climate change.
Climate has changed and will go on changing - without the help of us puny humans.
Its the height of arrogance for politicians and vested interests to think that by making us pay ever more taxes the activity of the sun, the oceans, the volcanoes, can be 'stopped'.
There is little point in an atheist having a conversation with a religious person about whether god exists if the religious person refuses to consider evidence, proof, reason.
Similarly, a conversation between a scientist and a climate change denier is pretty worthless if one side doesn't consider evidence, proof, reason.
The funny thing is both 'sides' probably think the other doesn't consider evidence etc.
Thank goodness for Terry Houghton breathing practical, historical sense into this discussion. The VERY short recorded history of human activity shows a lot of indicators that climate changes without any assist from humans.There have been instances before when so-called scientists have made results fit a theory. This is human frailty; as it must be very disapointing when the results do not go the same way as the idea you have in your head. Read Diamond and Seven Daughters of Eve for honing concerns about how humans DO, very seriously, affect the landscape local to their habitat. Humans cannot migrate anymore without causing war or aggressive annoyance to whoever claims ownership of the ground. When humans do settle, unfettered, in any numbers, destruction follows. We still need to think seriously about our effect on the planet. Humans are far too prone to bashing the hell out of each other, and chucking nasty insults and blame, tnan sitting down and sorting out the mess.
"In a statement welcomed by climate change sceptics, the university said it would make all the data accessible as soon as possible, once its Climatic Research Unit (CRU) had negotiated its release from a range of non-publication agreements."
Which data will be released - the raw data or the "quality-controlled" data?
Dr Phillip Bratby 7-25am. I can remember David Shukman reporting from somewhere or other- a cold pace (presumably getting warmer?)- I can't recall the exact context. He waxed lyrical- "I can see the Vikings sitting around their camp fires roasting their potatoes". Well of course, he can imagine all he likes- little green men, pixies, goblins and trolls, even Hagar the Horrible. It is probable that Vikings travelled to America but I don't think we can credit them with "discovering" the potato. However, when the potato was brought back to Europe in the 16th century it was eschewed for a long time as it was recognised as a member of the Nightshade family. Shukman is on one big jolly at the licence payers' expense and is really just a journalistic showman.
Lady Muck,
1) Combustion (of fossil fuels) would not cause the the earth to heat up because the difference of the combustion, both direct heat and contribution to total CO2 in the atmosphere is insignificant (less than 1% if atmospheric C)2 is man made).
2) I agree it would be prudent to restrict reliance on fossil fuels, but energy security is not what this is about.
3) Climate sceptics don't need to imagine a motive - that's not the point either. As someone who did a degree in a science discipline, I don't know all about the climate, but I do know what is and isn't science. These show an impossibility to reproduce the results, either by withholding the data, or withholding the adjustments made to the data to get the results. The adjustments may be valid, but we don’t know and life teaches us that when someone hides something, it’s because they have something to hide!
Phil
For Jonny:
"Doesn't The University of East Anglia have a long standing reputation"
The University of East Anglia is one of the third-rate institutions cobbled together in the 1960s from all the dull colleges and dead-beat polys with their fourth-rate syllabuses and fifth-rate lecturers.
It has no reputation.
We wouldn't even know that it existed but for its jump onto the global warming (sic) bandwagon.
It's one of those institutions whose students fail to find jobs when they emerge with their bits of paper.
If only people were aware of the pathetic Toytown politics, the scheming, the utterly useless lecturing staff and the dodgy dealings of Academia.
Most lecturers aren't worth paying in washers. They're lucky to have jobs and wouldn't survive for a moment in the real world.
'They' will get away with it and 'you' will do nothing about it. And 'they' know that !
@pumpernickel
"the gist of the article is that utterings in Emails of scientists are taken out of context, twisted and wrongly interpreted using the method used in courtrooms by lawyers"
You mean cross-examination ? Wouldn't be any guilty people if that didn't exist.
You, although not bright enough to realise it, are guilty of the same conceit and deviousness of the climate change coterie.
John Small @7:10
Try this paper, you should have no problem understanding it.
Falsification Of
The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects
Within The Frame Of Physics
Gerhard Gerlich
Institut fur Mathematische Physik
Technische Universitat Carolo-Wilhelmina
Mendelssohnstrasse 3
D-38106 Braunschweig
Federal Republic of Germany
g.gerlich@tu-bs.de
Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Postfach 60 27 62
D-22237 Hamburg
Federal Republic of Germany
ralfd@na-net.ornl.gov
Perhaps Pumpernickel (7:39) can provide some examples of how the media have conspired to "brainwash" the public about climate change. This should not be difficult of course as the British mainstream media has been notorious for its bias toward the political/celebrity climate-change agenda, particularly the BBC (ref Dr Bratby's post 7:25) In fact it is these reports in this paper which are the first attempts to provide the balance that Pumpernickel is so keen about. His link is merely more of the same-old-same-old warmist apologia rather than a critical analysis.
For Kate:
"They have been so successful with their message of greenhouse doom that, should one of them prove tomorrow that it is nonsense, the discovery would have to be suppressed for the sake of the overall reputation of science."
And yet, when the ships went sailing out to explore the New World and didn't fall off the edge, the scientists who told the people with absolute conviction that the Earth was Flat had to change their tune.
When thermometers continue to fall in the years to come, and one bad winter follows another, the scam of Global Warming will become increasingly difficult to sell to the general public.
More and more scientists are proving brave enough to stick their heads above the parapets and say it's all nonsense.
And now we have the clearest evidence that the "scientists" of the Global Warming movement are cooking the books to fit their own bent agenda.
The politicians of the planet, the trashiest people alive, will, sadly, be among the last to shout that the Emperor is wearing no new clothes.
who are the ones always screaming about Global Warming, socialists, and liberals the same ones that supported CND,which mostly consisted of communist activists.When a right wing think tank says it is man made then I might take some notice.In the meantime let the left explain middle age warming 800-1400 not to many cars around in those days.
We AGW "deniers" are vindicated at last tho much good it has done us. So little cover in the MSM of this shocking story and not a step missed by our dear Leaders, as they prepare to bung even more of our hard earned at this scam
The data is not lost in the sense of cannot be found CheshireRed. It is corrupted, by a series of "corrections" so that they can no longer be certain how they arrived at what they arrived at.
Hadley aren't interested in the actual original data, which can be easily recovered. They are interested in "corrected" data, which shows the "true" extent of warming, but which they have "corrected" too many times.
Despite the apparent evidence (not denied by them )that the statistics have been doctored and a fraud committed , you watch as the 'Global Warming Circus' continues unabated and the real evidence ignored
The academics are still in their posts and have not even been suspended ....what does that tell you ?
They are now asking for 'months' before releasing their data ...what does that tell you ?
This is a massive insult to the public of the whole world.
I hope that somewhere , someones gets on the streets and shows the politocians that the people are not going to be enslaved with lies like this.
They are going to use this info to tax you to hell and stop you driving your car. They are actually trying to contain travel so that we will need visas to go abroad , like Iran and North Korea.
Under the Freedom of Information Act and by searching the Company registers in the USA or more likely, Lichtenstein , can we find out how much Al Gore's companies are making out of this ?
Well done Christopher, excellent article.
Another scandal is the mainstream media coverage of this scandal.
In particular the coverage, or rather lack of it, from the BBC.
I think there should be an investigation into political and ideological bias at the BBC.
The climate of the World has been changing since day one,but hey,there is money to be made here and another excuse to tax people.Also,whats the point if China,India and the rest of them take no notice under the guise that they are developing Nations,arrrr,aint that nice eh?poor little people,so they dont have to conform.
"We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data."
Thanks, Phil.
I love the CRU's phrase "quality controlled".
I think what they mean is that any data that does not square with their version of the truth - that temperatures are rising - is "modified" until it does.
And having been "quality controlled", the original data is then deleted.
Warmism, like the communism and fascism which preceeded, it will have its brief day in the sun.
You are absolutely correct when you say that these people cannot be allowed to get away with this. They were in a highly paid position of trust on the taxpayers payroll. Now, they have to pay the ferryman.
Things acquire a life of their own. A few scientists come up with a dopey idea that implies amongst other things that rich nasty countries like USA are unfairly using up the worlds supply of oxygen or whatever. Immediately anyone with an anti-USA agenda jumps on the bandwagon. Then the TV cameras arrive and the original scientists become celebrities. Then, sensing an opportunity to demonstrate that they "care", opportunistic politicians like Brown clamber aboard. Together with rock stars. And the people who have a great lifestyle fronting "charities" who pretend to be concerned about the third world. By this time the original scientists are high priests of a huge movement. Lots of power and money. They can now spend their life at conferences in 5 star hotels, mix with world leaders and rock stars, see themselves on TV....wouldn't you lie to protect all this?
Alot of you foks have spent too much of your lives staring at LCDS, how about taking a look out of your windows or better still going for a walk, and noting how different the weather patterns have become.
This debate- especially from the "Warmists" reminds me of the sinister and extremely nasty text "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion". This very dangerous work of mischief- proven to be a manufactured fraud has over the years caused untold damage- constantly being used by dangerous organisations and individuals to stir up hatred and trouble. Likewise, with Global Warming- the dubious data of Mann and the rest of them can be debunked until hell freezes over but still millions will believe their data and dubious organisations- not least governments will use this data as an opportunity to tax and control. Frank Zappa was quite correct when he stated that the commonest element in the universe is not hydrogen- it's STUPIDITY.
I just can't see this climate change train stopping.
Too many politicians have given their voice to it and too much money is at stake.
If they can sack a scientists for telling them the truth about drugs then we can expect them to sack these clowns and to replace them with more savvy and compliant "scientists" and this event will be sent down the memory hole.
I hesitate to add one more voice to the many comments on Christopher's article, but it seems quite clear to me, (my degree is in Chemistry read at Nottingham University...albeit not the best degree ever). Science research is quite straightforward; hypothesis, test, predict and test again. If the predictions do not tally with the hypothesis, which is undoubtedly the case with "Global Warming", then a total rethink is required.
My puzzlement is with the "scientists" behind the GW now-in-disgrace theories. What is in it for them? This seems clear in Al Gore's case, ie money, but the scientific evaluation process is, or should be, sacrosanct to all scientists regardless of inducements.
Perhaps Christopher can offer his respected views on the mystery behind the GWarmist motivation(s).
John Fiddy B.Sc.
Looks like it's just me who believes the earth is warming and us humans dunnit and we're all doomed.
I'm no scientist (nor I suspect are most of the Commentaters), It is possible that I am wrong, but ist seems that the Comments have more than one belief.
Some deny that there is Global Warming, some that there may be Global Warming but man is not responsible. Others that there is no problem even if there is....
Would the climate change-deniers please explain
1) why all this combustion would not cause the earth to heat up
2)why it would not be prudent to restrict the burning of fossil fuel since isupplies are finite
3) what is the motive of those who have allegedly falsified data to back up thir conspiracy of climate change due to the carbon burning
Brief answers please !
Before we hear the next in a long line of Brown promises to save the world, I'm making a sincere guarantee to cut my personal emmissions of greenhouse gas by 97.47 percent.
Beat that Brown.
Booker writes a damning article.... and rightly so. The scientific conduct of CRU is nothing less, then an absolute scandal.
The people who, as our Politicians repeat over and over again, who Write the "Science", are nothing less then proven scoundrels, who have been caught cooking the books.
The hypothesis of AGW is flawed and a fraud to boot.
Well said Christopher, hopefully more articles like yours will appear and hopefully uncover what is potentially the worst misappropriation of scientific method in the history of mankind...
Next time you get your home and contents insurance renwel policy, look at how much it has increased by.
Then ask why, ? Answer, floods,droubs,fires,tsunami's rising sea levels, and empty river catchements.
ALL OVER THE GLOBE.
Now ask do you live at or under sea level, how much is a house worth under water ?
In five years time you probibly will not be able to insure anything,
Nowt to do with global warming though eh ?
Mr Booker, you're the man. If only the decrepit Broon would stop pontificating in Trinidad and passing on taxpayers money to corrupt regimes to stash away all in the name of "Climate Change". Uganda was an independent country the last time I looked and does not have Broons image on it's notes!
The sad thing about this entire business, is that the governments of the world will go on no matter what the evidence against the "warmists" They simply will not listen.
This is another excuse to pour aid (along with the trillions already given away) to third-world countries.
The way the BBC reports on news related to the forthcoming Copenhagen summit is always put as if global warming is a fact -the true fact is that the earth is cooling down and has been for a number of years.
I agree with one writer, that we should stop giving to green organisations and in addition we should refuse to pay carbon taxes (or whatever the powers to be call it).
In the meantime, as plans to tax us until we squeak, our wondeful ministers continue to waste money on themselves - not their own money, of course.
John Small, I majored in physics lo those many years ago, and I did quite well in the course called "Thermodynamics". I quite doubt that you did so, but aren't those "big" and "scientific" words fine to use?
As it is, I am a retired professional civil engineer, and the whole Anthropogenic Global Warming scheme was nothing but a fancy in someone's mind . . . and a furthering of the senseless concept called "Gaia" by it's founder, James Lovelock, the environmental whacko who stated that oxygen is a toxic and poisonous gas.
If folks such as you really want for billions of humans to die, I humbly suggest that you folks "go first".
"Would Mr Booker please explain why the laws of thermodynamics no longer apply to the Earth's atmosphere." (John Small 7:10am)
Alternatively, a relevant question would be directed to these so called "scientists." Could they please explain why they've not been able to prove how these laws of thermodynamics apply to their theories about the climate, fraudulent hockey-stick graphs notwithstanding? Why instead have they had to resort to distortions,lies and possibly criminal behaviour in repsect of Freedom of Information legislation? The onus to prove and explain does not lie with Mr Booker. It lies (pun intended) with these tax-payer funded "celebrity experts".
John Small @ 7.10 am:
Are you a physicist?
You may find that Fourier was wrong in inventing the so-called "greenhouse effect". I think physics may have moved on a little since 1845, and the atmosphere is known not to behave like a greenhouse.
You say "The laws of thermodynamics are quite clear on the effects of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere".
The laws of thermodynamics say nothing about the effects of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere.
"If you add extra insulation to stop heat flowing from a warm place to a cold place, the warm place stays warmer."
Please explain to Christopher and all the readers here how a molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere is an insulator (you may discuss molecular collision, radiation and convective heat transfer processes).
I'll give you a few clues to hep you. Only a perfect insulator will "stop heat flowing from a warm place to a cold place" (by conduction I presume you mean). Gases are by no means perfect insulators, in fact, by molecular collision, they exchange energy very efficiently and they move energy very readily by convection. The only perfect insulator (as far as molecular collision - or conduction is concerned) is a vacuum and energy is transferred across a vacuum by electro-magnetic radiation. You may have noticed that the earth is surrounded by such a vacuum (we call it space).
One of the first things one learns when studying engineering come science is that "first one forms an hypothesis and then one tries to prove the hypothesis" which , as the UEA academics et. al. have proved , is not exactly correct . First one looks at the data - at the evidence , and then one tries to form a hypothesis , and then one tries to prove , or disprove , that hypothesis depending on where the facts lead . There is also a huge difference between a hypothesis and a theory , and even a theory is not 100% rock solid . What the UEA academics et. al. have is an unproved hypothesis .
Stop bitching, take responsibility and take action. Stop all donations to the political party(s) responsible for this fraud. Stop donations to all environmental groups which funded this Global Warming propaganda campaign with our money, especially The Environmental Defense Fund. Write your state and federal representatives demanding wall to wall investigations of government sponsored funding and coordination of this and related propaganda campaigns and demand indictments of those responsible. Write your state and federal Attorneys General demanding Al Gore and others conducting Global Warming/Climate Change racketeering and mail fraud operations be brought to justice, indicted, tried, convicted and jailed. That’s what I have done in response to this outrageous violation of the public trust. Think of the consequences if you do nothing!
Further to my first post, which at the moment seems to have dropped off the bottom of the page.
I have just looked at the Radio Times for 5-11 December 2009. It is pretty evident that the BBC shows total bias on this issue as mentioned by Bob Ashton at 09:24 pm. Now whether this is internal bias by edict from DG Mark Thompson, who tells the staff in true Fawlty Towers style, "don't mention Climategate" or whether this is the result of the government leaning on Mark Thompson, we will probably never know (and given the fact that Mark Thompson's huge salary is paid by us licence-fee payers at the will of the government, it is highly probable that he would do as told by his government paymasters).
However, getting back to the Radio Times, there is a big article by Prof Iain Stewart (professor of geosciences communications - which sounds a lot like professor of propaganda) with the usual "we are all going to fry" because this is the finding of (consensus) thousands of scientists. The article is mind-boggling tripe which a school student could pull apart for its factual nonsense; and yet the BBC is prepared to print this and at the same time completely ignore Climategate. Oh and the Iain Stewart article is followed by the usual warmist propaganda of David Shukman (at times world affairs correspondent, science correspondent and environment correspondent). Amazing the multi-skills of BBC hacks, no wonder they know what they are talking about!
I think we can all draw our conclusions about the BBC.
I suggest everyone write to the BBC and their MP about this scandal.
Climate change is real but the scale and nature of it has been hyped to provide 'good eating' for a whole bunch of freeloaders. Add to this the whole 'cap and trade' scam (a.k.a. the carbon tax) and what should be a normal reaction to a potential pollution problem has been discredited. We do need to get more efficient and focus on renewables -- no amount of cooking the books one way or the other is going to change this. We also don't need to go overboard -- a measured response using largely existing technologies should do the trick.
Two other points need attention here as well:
1) it is scandalous that the MSM, with the BBC at the forefront, have carefully not reported on ClimateGate - worse is that not one of our politicians, never mind which party, has seen fit to ask questions in Parliament.
After all - these people have been funded from our taxes.
2) The disservice done to science generally, and to all young people who may have aimed to study science at university, is incalculable.
Here we have data falsified, 'lost', manipulated; we have other scientists' work suppressed; we have science become politicised so that critical appraisals are shouted down.
Scientific progress depends on disagreement, on argument, on checking of data - it is not dependent on 'consensus', especially not where this consensus is driven by political agendas outside of science proper.
Thank your for your book, Mr Booker - I hope this scandal will give rise to more reports by you, forcing others in the MSM to take notice.
The idea that the laws of thermodynamics are part of a media scam to extract research grants from government and enslave ordinary people seems not quite right.
Are you seriously suggesting that the man who discovered the greenhouse effect, Joseph Fourier way back in 1845, is in on the scam.
If the laws of thermodynamics are part of a scam then how come they work so effectively?
The laws of thermodynamics are quite clear on the effects of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere. If you add extra insulation to stop heat flowing from a warm place to a cold place, the warm place stays warmer.
Would Mr Booker please explain why the laws of thermodynamics no longer apply to the Earth's atmosphere.
Once academics get a bee in their bonnet they will manipulate everything to fit in with their idee fixe. (I am married to an academic and, in a mild form, have seen precisely this behaviour). Secondly, in a secular age, people's longing for a sense of virtue is fulfilled by "green" dogma. You get the "green" missionaries and fanatics. Just religion with a different name which is why people so much want to believe this "global warming" farrago.
Has anyone ever asked our renowned 'scientists' whether the geographical locations of the temperature measurement devices ( thermometers ) have also been 'adjusted' to fit better with the 'change' theories ?
Thermometers and Tree Rings are but two methods of assessing temperatures, and both are subject to 'fitting' and 'interpretation'.
The nice thing about geological findings is that "they are literally cast in stone" !
And yet these latter remain excluded from the infamous and at best speculative 'Computer Models' all relying on the same corrupted data.
Once "Science" is corrupted, either we clean it out thoroughly, or we shall be ruled by dictators paying their wages !
Protestations of innocence from the Unis need treating with the contempt the emailers hold the rest of mankind in !
Congratulations Mr Booker - splendid stuff! As a scientist myself(Chartered Engineer)and keen historian for most of my life, I find it incredible that the very existence of the CRU is even deemed necessary.
Bear in mind that we are in one of many inter-glacial periods and in recorded history there have been many examples of non man-made climate change(ex- Global Warming) These include the abrupt ending of the Old Kingdom in ancient Egypt circa 2400 BCE, through the warm classical period, enabling the growth of the Greek and Roman empires when wheat from the Sahara desert fed the Roman empire, the following cold period (one of several) on the central steppes of Asia, causing the "migration of the peoples" (i.e. Huns, Vandals, Goths, Alans, Slavs, Angles, Jutes etc) in the 4th and 5th centuries AD causing the subsequent downfall of the western Roman empire, the MWP, the mini Ice Age with the resultant loss of the Norse colony in Greenland, the 18th century mini ice-age with its "skating on the Thames" scenarios, etc, etc.
I live in a village in South Wales that has a Vine Street and a Vinegar Hill, testament to the fact that the area was renowned for its vine growing abilities in the MWP. These local names are common as far north as York, confirming a warmer climate in the MWP.
Most worrying, the MWP (along with most historic evidence) is blithely ignored by the pseudo-scientists and charlatans of the litle known University of East Anglia, of which the CRU is part.
Soooo, why on earth do we need a bunch of blinkered academics to study the current situation in isolation, fiddle historic data and come up with facile and spurious theories, causing global mayhem and incomprehensible levels of cost, with the concommitant possibility of the end of modern life as we know it?
And, how on earth do they justify the enormous research grant they are allocated from the public purse? By what means was this grant agreed, by whom and to what end? One can only assume a political motivation, when there are so many and far more worthy research faculties desperate for funding.
Possibly related, the deafing silence from the BBC (British Broadcasting for Cretins?) and most of the broadsheets following the enormity of the breaking news ths week concerning the perfidy of the CRU, is most worrying.
In any scientific community which aspires to meet the basic standards of integrity, data manipulation and distortion has historically been a career ending offense.I think the warming gang have easily qualified for the above fate, but I don't think they should be totally unemployed. If they have the welfare of the country and the World at heart, they should devote their time to scrubbing the floors of some of the dirtier hospitals.
The BBC, impartial and balanced to the core, except when the liberal lefties employed by the BBC choose otherwise. It is an outrage for the BBC not to provide a proper platform for serious balanced scientific debate. The very idea that opportunity be given to allow a debate to debunk the myths and spurious ALGORE rhythms, supposedly proving the truth of the most serious man made catastrophe facing the worlds major economies, would it, seems, be considered tantamount to blasphemy.
It is self evident that the corporate policy is decided; and the mantra is, man made warming is the message, the only message and shall be assiduously followed by all.
The policy is producing whether intentionally or not, a climate of fear and mass hysteria. We will of course feel a lot better by throwing billions of pounds at the 3rd world countries. No doubt to be eventually siphoned into secret Swiss bank accounts.
Surely everyone must realise by now that the BBC = British BRAINWASHING Corporation. Paid for by the Great British public as an additional tax burden, but allowed to exist courtesy of HM Government, maybe therein lies the true root of the rationale being applied, one of self preservation.
When is somebody that is not insane going to take charge of the asylum? Oh, sorry forgot, no more asylums, we now have care in the community.
I'm still waiting for the passive smoking evidence.
Henry Davidson
As the fairy story goes, once upon a time ulcers were caused by acid in the stomach, we all new that even a layman like me knew it, it was the scientific consensus. Then Drs. Barry Marshall and Robin Warren of Australia came along with Helicobacter pylori.
My only question is how much energy is expended from power stations, to make the motors that are fitted to wind turbines, to cause the aerofoils rotate.
I live near some of these monstrosoties, in a gale force wind, if they had been nude ladies, the Lord Chamberlain would have declared them viewable, ie not moving.
The first place to erect one of these items, is in the garden of the person who sanctions their erection.
The question is why!
Why did the CRU scientists fiddle their results? Is it because they had findings that didn't match their pet theories - and they didn't want to lose face by admitting it? Or is it - as I suspect - that they knew very well what their paymasters wanted out of them and they ditched the science to become deceitful jobsworths? Either way they are damned.
And why, oh why, even now, do so many still claim Global Warming is real. Despite everything that has happened? Could it be that they don't really give a damn about Global Warming as such. They probably know very well it is nonsense. But they are concerned about the environment. They saw Global Warming as a good tool to bash us into producing less - something with which I have some sympathy as it happens.
But what is really happening is that Governments all over the world are using Global Warming to hustle trillions of pounds out of worried ordinary people who haven't a clue as to what's really going on. And to make those people accept all restrictions and loses of personal freedom "for the cause".
And why do they want all that money? Seriously, what do they intend to do with it? Nothing sensible that I can see! But it does make this Global Warming lark the biggest gravy train in history! Right on the crest of what is likely to be the biggest recession in history. And it will eat up vast amounts of the world's natural resources for no good purpose - except for filling the bank accounts of the chosen few.
Way to go politicians of the world - you are an absolute disgrace!
Great article - keep it up!
It's quite clear that the sun has far more effect than man on the planet's temperature level.
We do need to reduce hydrocarbon consumption and pollution for many good reasons and thats going to be very difficult. The greenies have managed to stymie nuclear power development in many countries (well done the French). But would it not be very embarassing if Chinese and/or Indian climate scientists showed up western scientists as conjuring up false projections?
I have sent an ultimatum to Gordon Brown: do not attend Copenhagen - or face an uprising in the streets when you get back.
John B on November 28, 2009 at 09:47 PM
"Not that some of them even needed an excuse."
I think that that should be: Not that any of them even needed an excuse.
If more people knew what "science" is, this topic would never have made it so far. As soon as you have a principal proponent of AGW stating that "the debate is over", you have to know that something is wrong. In science, the debate is never over.
Without wishing to go off topic, if destroying data after a Freedom of Information Request has been received, why has nobody been prosecuted for the shredding of all Tony Blair's expenses which were the subject of an FOI request. The shredding was, as the Telegraph reported, a "mistake". But the request was very widely reported so how could this have happened by accident?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936289.ece
I am not very good at posting links so if this does not work then cut and paste.
The upshot, I guess they have been keeping their powder dry given what is going on in the world of politics.
I think Obama may cancel his trip.
zebb on November 28, 2009 at 09:07 PM
"The BBC is going to be implicated in this scandal and is going down."
The BBC is implicated right up to the tippy top of its head, but it will only go down if it is burnt down. Even that could be difficult as it considers itself fireproof.
Bravo, Mr Brooker and bravo the DT. The rest of the MSM are so far behind it's laughable.
Henry Davidson on November 28, 2009 at 10:22 PM
"Try and understand why there is a scientific consensus on global warming."
Yes, Henry, that's what we ARE doing, just exactly that, trying to understand why there's a scientific consensus on globl warming (actually, it's wore commonly referred to as "Climate Change" these days.
It appears that there is prima facie evidence that the much vaunted "consensus" is based, at least partially, on a conspiracy to fabricate evidence, debase the peer review process, avoid legitimate Freedom of Information Act requests by deleting information (a criminal offence, that) and discredit any scientists attempting to present for publication papers that disagreed with the aforesaid "consensus".
phil g on November 28, 2009 at 10:16 PM
"The overwhelming evidence is that global warming is occurring and that a major part of this is man made."
Phil, it seems to have escaped your attention, but "the overwhelming evidence" appears to be at best questionable, and quite possibly fabricated.
It also seems to have escaped your attention that the Global Warming seems to have taken a bit of a holiday, or do you class the likes of Kevin Trenberth, quote: "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" Link: http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/kevin-trenberths-real-travesty/ as a denier, and Prof. Mojib Latif, and the Max Planck Institute as deniers too?
Currently, it seems it's your lot that are the deniers, phil.
Global Warming is a Hoax Perpetrating a Fraud Based on a Lie to Establish Control Over The Unknowing.
Don't you feel foolish now?
The problem is 2-fold:
1) Politicians have no clue about how science works.
2) Most journalists are like as clueless as politicians.
Both breeds are simply not equipped to understand what scientist (or would-be scientists) are telling them. Hence the team with the best 'spin' wins.
It is clear that politics failed to handle this right and the mechanism that should keep them in check (free unbiased media) did too...
I must say that I am not sure how to prevent repetition of this. I am not even sure that this Climategate will get picked up properly. So far, in the Netherlands, the main stream politician's response has just been flat out denial.
Let's show government what we think of "the worst scientific scandal of our generation".
If you’re in the UK or commonwealth, sign this petition against Climate Change laws and policies:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/climate-fraud/
David Welch, you are a totally deluded idiot. There is nothing else to describe you. I have read through heaps of the emails and the source code that went with it. My conclusion is that this is a scam of the highest order. These people should go to prison for the theft and misuse of public funds.
Potentially we could have wasted billions in looking for solutions to non-existent problems when the money wasted on carbon sinks, etc., could have been much more profitably spent on devising proper alternative fuels or cleaning up the oceans or providing clean and drinkable water to the world's poor.
The biggest joke of all is that we still don't know if the world is warming or cooling. But does it even matter, as there is not a lot that feeble man could do about it anyway.
Message for R Barnes posting at 11.34 p m on 28th November 2009 there is not enough land, or money, to build the re-education camps necessary for your fascist policies to be put in place.
If the earth is not warming, what is the cause of those icebergs breaking up?
Craig on November 28, 2009 at 11:02 PM
FYI: Australian media reports.
Came across this that is somewhat related. I suspect we would not see the likes of this reporting on UK TV. http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=dAHgAQHmCzw
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
has been giving coverage.
Not media reports as such but maybe of interest. Here is an account from an Australian Climate Scientist describing the "shaping" of the Australian temperature record.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/26/warwick-hughes-shows-how-jones-put-bias-in-australian-temperatures/ and as both these are mentioned by CB, here is an account of the recent findings regarding the New Zealand temperature record. http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/global_warming_nz2.pdf
David Welch (8.43pm 28/11)
It's now time for you to face the real world.
K. Rudd (Oz PM and very much pro-AGW) recently spent most of a speech castigating those who are climate change deniers. That expression is an absolute oxymoron because no one, absolutely no one, denies that the climate changes. It always has and always will.
A stock broker wrote a very long, but good, answer to Rudd discussing science and economics. It would be worth your time to read the letter.
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=548&Itemid=1
Thank you, The Daily Telegraph and Mr Booker, for an excellent article.
I look forward to public apologies from the IPCC, BBC, CNN and U turns from our woolly-headed, warmist leaders over the next few months.
Keep it up, please.
Completely agree. It is the biggest scientific scandal of our age and those responsible have to be held accountable. The sooner the better.
Craig, 11.08, 28 Nov;
'there is nothing in the Australian papers about it'...
And you are SURPRISED, Craig..!!??
The Australian media, led by Newscorp and the ABC are TOTALLY behind Rudd's Labor Govt - they will not publish anything or show any news items, which affect Rudd's popularity.
Additionally, the sheeple in Australia have swallowed the MSM line on Climate Change(esp the Metropolitan Lefties in Melbourne & Sydney who make up almost half of the country's electorate), so any attempt to raise Climategate by the Coalition, themselves divided although the REALISTS are in the majority, will NOT be taken seriously by the voters because the Aus media will not cover it.
Have you joined the rest of us on the reality bus yet, or are you still happy to pay $1100
extra taxes every year to achieve exactly NOTHING, except some Brownie points for your PM at the UN..!??
(((((("Unless we find other sorts of power generation than carbon forms of power generation we will be at war over resources all the time. And in the current world it is considered rude to go to war over resources however necessary they are.")))))
There you go Ink, making a solid argument, without the need for deceit, lies or cover-ups. You didn't even need to destroy public trust in the integrity of the scientific method to make your argument! I applaude your integrity.
Now, remind me again why the ends justify the means? Why create a massive lie when you can promote your national security interests by appealing to common sense?
True genius is near to madness allied, said the bard. Reminds me of B Karloff and other 1930's films showing us a bunch of mad scientists.
The case for man made global warning is looking weaker and weaker.
But don't forget, even if IPCC proves vindicated, spending trillions of dollars reducing CO2 emissions isn't actually going to help. And that is according to IPCC's cherry picked data.
In case no one else noted it, that's steam, not smoke, from sinusoidal cooling towers, probably associated with a nuke plant, behind the creaking, whoomp-whoomping, bird-mulching machine.
If you ever get a chance to walk through the base of a sinusoidal cooling tower, do NOT make loud noises or laugh, as you can easily be deafened for life. They amplify sound amazingly well, better than any cathedral.
Hat tip to Christopher Booker and James Delingpole, saviours of MSM reporting!
Like other frauds to deceive the public, this goes right to heart of Government corruption around the globe. Corruption aimed at stealing billions from their citizens.
When news like this is kept away from the public eye, from Aus to US, we smell a rat...
Doesn't The University of East Anglia have a long standing reputation of being left of left?
Need I say more?
R. Barnes
on November 28, 2009
at 11:34 PM
Equally there is no sense in an impoverished World dictatorially ruled by lieing, cheating super-rich politicians, relying on highly rewarded and equally corrupt pseudo scientists for the perpetuation of the Worlds' greatest Scams !
Heads need to roll - literally !
This is a most monstrous outrage against humanity - the easy equivalent of any War-Crimes series !
The simultaneous problems associated with the 'throw-away' society have little if anything to do with global temperatures, and much more to do with 'land availability' and recycling.
They are only made worse by the same corrupt Tax-raising 'Regulatory' mindset that bought into Global Warming / Climate Change and whatever new Scams they come up with after ClimateGate and the Copenhagen Conspiracy !
The "Whistleblowers" should be nominated for Nobel Prizes for "Services to Mankind" !
The World owes a great debt of gratitude to Christopher Booker and his colleagues around the globe, Prof. Ian Plimer amongst them.
This "ClimateGate" must NOT be allowed to be swept under the carpets by our unscrupulous political classes either !
It is notable how eagerly the Tax Hungry EU Commission and its minions throughout Europe and the socialist element in the USA, siezed upon this great Scam in the very early days as probably the easiest method of maximising THEIR 'Tax-Take' and thrusting their dirty paws deep into everyones' pockets !
The clamour of "Roosting Chickens" grows louder by the minute, and it will be amusing to watch the twisting and gyrating of our so-called "Leaders" before and during the Copenhagen Summit.
Will they try to bluff it out and as usual simply ignore the facts and double the demands and dire warnings ?
They have surely been caught 'sans-culottes' this time, and I forsee many very reddened "cheeks" !
Just when the public were growing to believe that the Bankers were the Public Enemy Number 1, followed by the professional political thieves in our various governments - up rises the spectre of ClimateGate to expose our pseudo-scientists as the monstrous traitors to our very core of society !
The very least our government can do is to IMMEDIATELY announce full details of a hugely expanded Nuclear Power Generation Program designed with capacity to cover ALL this countries needs, not just the domestic coverage promised, which we all know to be another enormous LIE !
"De omnibus dubitandum !"
( Doubt everything ! )
The "Royal Society" has missed its way in allowing these monstrous shenanegans, and must be totally EXCLUDED from participation other than as accused or witnesses in any enquiry.
After which we need a few hangings "Pour encourager les autres !" AND to remind them of their "scientific oaths" and duties to society.
The fact is anthroprogenic global warming is probably taking place. There are costs to acting on it, but there are also likely to be costs if we do nothing.
The entire edifice of the Church of AlGore may be falling apart, but you can bet your bottom dollar that the actual aim of all this (from the tax-eating class's point of view) is not over... they will get their slimy talons in your pockets one way or t'other.
What's next - legislation to incarcerate Climocaust Deniers?
What I would like to know is if former Vice President Al Gore was aware in any way of this apparent falsification of data. In other words, what did he know and when did he know it? And if he did not know, then how could he have been so naive and foolish to blindly accept what many already know to be spurious scientific conclusions without appropriate scientific due diligence?
NucEngineer
on November 28, 2009
at 10:39 PM
Thankyou kind Sir for your precise precis of ClimateGate :-)
Please repeat it to every media editor you can discover - it is now vital there must be no possibility of further hiding or ignoring the corruption uncovered !
Bottom line: IF Global warming actually existed, then: there would have been no need for a freedom of information request for stats since those who supported GW would have been proud and happy to share them with anyone and everyone. Also: there would not have been need to cut off all scientific debate and call those scientists _ who were in the right to ask for debate - deniers. Also: there would not have been a need to have peer review restricted to a small group - an incestuous relationship appears to have existed. Also: there would not have been any need to complain about debate taking place in many of the "scientific" journals that were criticized - and demand that editors be removed for allowing scientific debate to take place. I cannot imagine any scientist refusing to share every point of his research in order to prove the point or at least prove how "intelligent and wise" they were in order to prove it. We are talking about egos here. I am convinced that these elements support the fact that climate change is a hoax. I don't even need to see any data in order to believe that. Otherwise - the data would have been forthcoming - so let's start telling our governments to stop the ignorance of cap and trade. We can give under developed countries a chance to better themselves without giving them money taken from this fraudulent cap and trade tax. And that is another reason I believe it is a hoax. We were told we could use CO2 if we paid taxes to do so. That is so ignorant. We can do so much to protect the environment - we don't need this fiasco to do it. I would beg that the scientists who still are trying to push GW do us all a favor by holding their breaths at least 5 minutes per hour. That hot air will best help our planet.
Its not the scandal that gets them, its the cover up every time!
Those heavily involved in the fraud and those who played a key supporting role, those who financed the fraud and those who stupidly believed in the fraud, a great many people have a lot of dirty laundry to hide.
Its glaringly obvious who has something to hide because they are the ones trying to kill the story, the BBCs entire reputation is at stake, it has been a fanatical cheerleader for AGW and ecofascism, the BBC simply has to engage in the cover up or face destruction.
Watch the fraudsters and their camp followers squirm and enjoy their discomfort, they truly deserve to suffer.
As I understand it the raw data shows that the global temperature is not rising . The only way that the climate scientists can show that it is rising is by using their computer models - with all their built in assumptions and , as we now understand , fiddle factors . That is all very telling . Further they are not taking into account natural effects such as natural cycles , solar system and galactic effects . And , if there was climate change going on , which we now know there isn't , they are wasting money trying to prevent it rather than preparing for it . We urgently need to cancel all this wasted expenditure . That we have to ultimately replace the petrol and coal economy is another separate issue .
Of course the BBC are not running with this story. They are a left-leaning liberal organisation hugely biased in favour of the Man Made Global Warming scam. Now that many of your commentators understand this, perhaps they will start to see how biased the BBC really is with regard to other subjects. There are various web sites devoted to exposing this bias such as www.bbcbias.co.uk which your readers might find enlightening.
phil g
on November 28, 2009
at 10:16 PM
Forgive me for yawning when you start your comment with the standard ClimateGate trashy assertions !
Have you not yet comprehended that the ruse called "Commonly accepted fact" is no such thing and has been rumbled ?
The "overwhelming evidence of data" tends to point to the COOLING of this planet - a scientifically popular theory from the 70's and NOT disproven since !
It is highly amusing to read the rantings of the warmist religion - especially now that the cat is well and truly out of the bag !
I do hope the career politicians depending on Copenhagen for their nest-eggs wake up and cancel before they become liable personnally for the horrendous waste of public funding on this sham.
Climategate points to the next layer that is cringing above the crooked scientists, i.e., the sources of the grant money that knowingly funded their phony research. Perhaps this would make a good thesis topic
for a real journalism student. It would indeed be a fruitful study in either the academic basic research or in the "please the boss" world of
applied science.
John M.
USA
After the years of mendacity, duplicity and arrogance displayed by these scientists, I would not trust them to tell me the time; and neither should any of you. Charles Langley
They should all be jailed until the "lost" files are found.
Even when we have proof that some scientists are lying or manipulating figures to try and prove that man-made global warming is a fact , politicians still run with the idea using taxpayers money to fund research and dubious ways of reducing our carbon footprint. Let us hope that our planetary vegetation species do not try to reduce their oxygen footprint.
Al Gore is the self-proclaimed "messiah" of a religious cult that preaches global warming hysteria without regard to fact or truth (as the willingness to fudge data proves).
Unfortunately, the politicians will ratify the International Treaty on Climate Change because "consensus" translates into votes - and there was once a consensus that the earth was flat.
Scientific integrity was first compromised by the 'passive smoking' fraud, this was the blue print laid down and followed ever since by vested interests.
Only time will tell on climate change, but does all the pro and con scientific argument matter one jot?
Pro or con, all that matters is that we take care of the planet.
Pro or con, the resources of the planet are exhaustible.
Pro or con, there's no sense in a throw away society, there's no sense in waste, there's no sense in war or conflict.
What a better world it would be without greed, jealousy and desire for riches. What a better world it would be if we were tolerant of others. We should fear human nature much more than climate change.
Being from the USA, I'm not up on all the British acronyms. Does "BBC" stand for "Bye Bye Credibility"?
Congratulations to the Telegraph on their excellent coverage of this scandal.
Climategate is a great name, by the way, because here you have all of the elements of the original "-gate" (Watergate):
- a crime designed to influence public opinion
- a coverup that got increasing more desperate and more absurd
- abuse of authority, and more particularly abuse of a system that let corrupt authorities essentially investigate/referee their own conduct
- a team of dogged investigators (Woodward&Bernstein / McIntyre&McKitrick)
- a mysterious leaker who finally brought down the whole house of cards
Indeed the only difference between this scandal and Watergate itself is the old adage that in Watergate, the cover-up was WORSE than the crime. Here it is clearly the reverse.
These people are the same as all zealots, whether neo-cons, the Catholic Church, or whatever fundamentalists. All means are justified to protect the cause.
Authority-supporting sycophants managed to see through the scam a lot quicker this time. Instead of asking yourselves, "Is it true?", ask rather, "How big a lie this time?"
Climategate: Now why can’t you start saying “9/11Gate”?
Never believe anything until it's been officially denied.
“Degrade Authority’s credibility"
Now that's a box that can be safely ticked (checked).
Why is it that the Telegraph seems to be the only paper interested in this story?
I just did a search on Guardian on Line, and nothing came up for "Climategate".
There is also nothing in the Australian papers on Climategate.
There is a huge debate going on here in Australia this week about whether or not to pass the Emissions Trading legislation. But the current focus of the debate is about the local political upheavals being caused by the debate.
The recent Climategate emails have not yet been brought into the debate. If they were, they would assist the climate-conservatives (ie, the no ETS before Copenhagen side.
So what I'm saying is that while the Telegraph seems to be getting very excited about Climategate, no one else is mentioning it.
"Unless we find other sorts of power generation than carbon forms of power generation we will be at war over resources all the time."
True, but we have not yet developed anything as energy-rich as carbon-based fuels. I, for one, am against the government artificially meddling in the cost of these fuels to make the inefficient "alternatives" we now have more cost competitive.
"The overwhelming evidence is that global warming is occurring and that a major part of this is man made. ..." -- phil g
All the evidence of which you speak, Mr. G., would easily fit on this page ; perhaps you'd like to produce it.
...
In your own time.
phil is away and can't respond. he has tenure so east anglia will find a way to protect him. he should be fired. he won't be but his reputation is a step below fern level.
An easy explanation of what ClimateGate means,
ClimateGate emails and computer programs were taken from a main server at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. It is not known if this was a theft or the actions of a whistleblower, disgusted with what the lead scientists at CRU were doing.
ClimateGate exposed the cabal of 20 – 30 scientists that peer reviewed each others papers, strong-armed scientific journals to only print their views, and then sat on the IPCC panels as authors judging which published studies go into the IPCC final reports. This is why they always keep shouting “peer reviewed studies, peer reviewed studies, peer reviewed studies”.
ClimateGate exposed that this small group has been adding positive corrections to the raw global temperature data, inflating the amount of published temperature rise over the last 50 years. Both CRU in the UK and NASA-GISS in the US add these biases. At CRU, the programmers did not even know what and why some corrections were added every month.
ClimateGate exposed the leaders of the this cabal instructing each other to delete emails, data files, and data analysis programs ahead of already filed Freedom Of Information Act requests for raw data and computer codes, clearly a crime.
ClimateGate exposed the “trick” about the Hockey stick figure and other studies that performed proxy construction of past temperatures. After all, reconstruction of the last 1,000 years of climate is the first step in predicting the future with super computer programs as explained below:
Everything about all 21 super computer programs used by the IPCC to determine future global warming rely on best-determined past sensitivities to solar and volcanic forcing from the proxy temperature record.
1. The elimination of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age (the handle of the hockey stick) was necessary so that past solar forcing effects could be minimized, thereby allowing almost all of the warming in the last 75 years to be blamed on Greenhouse Gasses. Raw data (like tree-ring thickness, radioisotope of mud layers in a lake bottom, ice core analyses, etc.) are used as a proxy for reconstruction of the temperature record for 1000 AD to 1960 AD. To ensure desired results, statistical manipulation of the raw data and selecting only supporting data, cherry-picking, was suspected and later proved.
2. The slope of long-term 10-year running average global temperature (the blade of the hockey stick) was maximized with the sloppy gridding code, Urban Heat Island effects, hiding the declines, and even fabricating data (documented in the leaked source code comments associated with ClimateGate) ensured that the Greenhouse Gas forcing coefficient in all 21 of the AGCMs is maximized. (This maximizes the temperature result at year 2100 based on Greenhouse Gas increases.) This thermometer data was used to cover the tree ring-divergence after 1960 and plot this over the climate history data of (1) above.
3. Because tuning of the super computer programs uses back casting, the computer outputs could replicate the 20th Century (by design); therefore it was assumed that the models had almost everything in them. Because of (1) and (2) above, nearly all climate change in the models was due to CO2 and positive feedbacks.
4. Over the years, when better numbers for volcanic effects, black carbon, aerosols, land use, ocean and atmospheric multi-decadal cycles, etc. became available, it appears that CRU made revisions to refit the back cast, but could hardly understand what the code was doing due to previous correction factor fudging and outright fabricating, as documented in the released code as part of ClimateGate.
5. After the IPCC averages the 21 super computer outputs of future projected warming, that output is used to predict all manner of catastrophes.
I hope that this makes the ClimateGate controversy easier to understand.
The picture for this article sure shows a lot of water vapor.
That is not smoke, that is not CO2 which is colorless and clear, that is not SO2 which could turn into acid rain since SO2 is nearly completely scrubbed out.
"There is no raw world climate data lost by the Hadley Centre"
- David Welch
Is that lying by careful misstatement, David - the data was lost by CRU at UEA, not by Hadley Centre at the Met Office, or do you just plain not know what you're talking about when you say no data was lost?
I refer you to Roger Pielke Jr's blog - he's a climate scientist with excellent neutral credentials (he believes in AGW but not uncritically).
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/08/we-lost-original-data.html
Roger quotes the CRU website:
"Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data."
Or as Roger then puts it:
"Say what?! CRU has lost track of the original data that it uses to create its global temperature record!? Can this be serious? So not only is it now impossible to replicate or reevaluate homogeneity adjustments made in the past -- which might be important to do as new information is learned about the spatial representativeness of siting, land use effects, and so on -- but it is now also impossible to create a new temperature index from scratch. CRU is basically saying, "trust us." So much for settling questions and resolving debates with empirical information (i.e., science)."
Of course given that Dr Phil Jones threatened to "delete the data if they ever get FOI access to it" and that that threat was considerably after the 1980s some might think that this stinks to high heaven!
Yes, it might be theoretically possible to reconstruct the temperature record from the original sources. Maybe that's what poor "Harry" was trying (and failing) to do. But what we won't be able to do is repeat the adjustments that led to the current dataset and the predictions of doom which are based on it. And most real scientists tend to view repeatability as kind of important to any hope of scientific credibility.
Quite.
Congrats to the DT for reporting on Climategate. Here in Canada only the National Post has reported, the CBC and the Globe and Mail are noticeable by their absence of reporting.
To take Philip Bratby's argument on a bit, even the Blessed James Hansen is on record as saying that there is no known way of actually measuring the earth's temperature properly and it is doubtful if that would be a useful metric anyway.
Someone asked the other day on a blog, "what is 3 degrees K + 3 degrees K?" I'm not sure the question has any meaning.
Is 10C twice as warm as 5C? I don't think an answer to that question (even assuming there is an answer to it) would get us anywhere useful.
The difference between the "earth's temperature" in the NH summer and the NH winter is greater than the increase which we are told will spell doom. It's certainly greater than the 2C that Frau Merkel thinks we can limit the increase to.
Is any of this relevant? And if not then why not? Scientists have been collecting data (and smoothing it and interpolating and projecting and perhaps even tweaking and falsifying them) in order to tell us that over the next x decades "the planet" will warm by less than the annual range of its current temperature.
Quite by the way but just out of interest the difference in temperature between my back garden and my front garden as I write this is 2.5 degrees C (and one of them is below zero!!)
All of which perhaps explains why I continue to maintain that none of this has anything to do with science and everything to do with politics.
What I find fascinating - and alarming - in this article and in almost all the comments posted is an unwillingness actually to look at the Climate Research Unit's response, and the response of its parent university, to the theft of some of its email correspondence. I suggest you go to:
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate
- and read carefully what they say. Try and understand why there is a scientific consensus on global warming. Finally, childish abuse of the Royal Society and its President is pathetic and foolish.
Mr Booker, why won't the politicians in charge take any notice of our case? Is it because they need 'green taxes' so badly and they don't have an alternative scheme to save our economy? We have moved from 'Global Warming' to 'Climate Change'. Any time soon we will move again to 'Atmospheric Degeneration' or some similar excuse. I always understood that Carbon Dioxide is non poisonous gas. Whereas Carbon Monoxide is deadly poisonous. If that is the case, burning wood or any other vegetable matter is just as dangerous as burning 'fossil fuels'?
The overwhelming evidence is that global warming is occuring and that a major part of this is man made. My question is quite simple: what are the motives behind those who seek to deny this? Indeed why is denial apparently such a right wing belief in both the US and the UK? Could it be that the deniers don`t like the obvious, and uncomfortable, policies which will have to be introduced to combat global warming - rather like those with a severe illness who deny its existance because of fear of the treatment? Or could it be that it taps into a kind of conspiracy neurosis which sees plots everywhere as the explanation of everything which they disagree with? A kind of communistic/liberal/ socialist/ no doubt EU centred plot which threatens civilisation as we know it. In which case please go into a dark room and consider your navel.
The CRU is financed by public money to pursue science. It is clearly in breach of the requirements for sound scientific research an it should repay the grants or repeat the work to a proper standard at its own expense.
Well done, Mr Booker, not just for this article but for making a stand for truth in this area for so long.
It is vital for people to grasp two further things about the CRU leak:
1. It will take months if not years to get to the bottom of the can of worms now opened (and hopefully there's a lot more to come).
2. Despite that, Steve McIntyre has found one crucial data set that he and others have been asking CRU to provide for years, that it is now clear should have been released and shown in graphs in 1998, as Michael Mann and co first foist the 'Hockey Stick' on the world. What McIntyre has already done with this missing data (the post-1960 tree ring series, as processed by Mann) is enough to completely discredit the Hockey Stick and reinstate the Medieval Warm Period, even more than before.
The importance of point 2 is as follows. Mann and his co-authors had in their possession data, produced by their own software, that they knew falsified their whole paper and that is why they refused for over eleven years to release it.
This is not science. It is of course no basis for trillions being wasted combating an imaginary problem. It is, I would have thought, criminal behaviour. Even if the lawyers dispute that, it is no way to run railroad, much less a taxpayer-funded institute of science. Heads must roll, on both sides of the Atlantic.
And large numbers of people need to follow Monbiot in issuing an apology, for ever listening to this crew and planning to force billions of the rest of us to do the same. The poorest two billion of whom don't yet have electricity, please recall. All carbon hating (and thus coal-hating) measures from the uncaring warmists would deprive these precious brothers and sisters of the most inexpensive source of power they are ever going to benefit from. THIS PART HAS TO STOP NOW.
The sackings, as Basil Fawlty would say, can wait till later.
As with all things timing is everything
The internet is alive with comments regarding to the misdeeds of the AGW community.
The release of the emails was timed to have maximum effect in relation to the thinking and background to Copenhagen. My head is quite frankly spinning trying to follow the now multiple DT threads on the subject.
Those people requesting the DT to give front page visibility need to wait a few more days just before the Copenhagen conference, since there is a possibility that even this news may get buried by other events, for example, The Dubai problems or the start date of the new EU structure.
A wise editor will wait until the point of maximum impact, before unleashing the power of the DT, which is much enhanced by the Expenses Scandal revelations.
The AGW crisis is much too important, since it involves all our futures, to be released in a haphazard manner, despite the temptations.
21:55 28_11_09
Before the CRU emails were leaked Christopher had already identified the collusion between scientists and politicians. Other have revealed similar collusion between a different group of scientists and big business. To try and get to the truth, myself and colleague set up a self-funded site which tries to present the basic facts about climate change data. It is at:
www.climatedata.info
Excelent summary, Mr. Booker.
A minor nitpick, however: Dr. Eduardo Zorita is a Spanish Climatologist currently working in Germany with Dr. Hans von Storch. May he apply the Comfy Chair and the Fluffy Pillow to crackpot science!
David Welch
on November 28, 2009
at 08:43 PM
Spoken like a true believer and proving yet again that Abraham Lincoln was right about it being possible to fool some of the people all of the time.
He was also right however about it being impossible to fool all of the people all of the time.
The cat's out of the bag, the game is up. The warmists skewed and/or made up data to make the facts fit their preconceived ideas and prove their preconceived theories.
You can call that activity by many names but whatever name it uses it is it surely can't be called science.
The watermelons have lost, the population of the planet have won.
The planet itself couldn't care less. It didn't have a horse in the race.
We can't trust our politicians, we can't trust the BBC, we can't trust our medics, we can't trust our media, we can't trust the bankers, we can't trust the police, we can't trust the clergy, and now we find we can't even trust our bloody scientists. What a country, what a planet......Anyone out there want to buy a newly-built Ark ?
Although this article is very well done, what is that saying, "Apperances are everything?" Well, in some folks minds. Wow all that evil CO2 (white clouds) coming from those, those, nasty, evil, wicked...NUCLEAR REACTORS!
What a HOOT! Sorry journalists. Try learnging to tie your shoelaces.
I see 4 containment buildings in the middle of the cooling towers. AND one stupid wind turbine. Wind turbine = 1 Megawatt electric with 20% capacity factor (i.e., 200,000 watts average output.)
4 X 1000 X Megawatt = 20,000 times as much power. Typical installed cost of said windmill, $2,000,000 That would be a cost of $40 BILLION compare the (realistic, if NOT impeded by ENVIROMENTALISTS, etc. cost of $2 Billion per reactor or 8 Billion. End result - Wind power at 10 times the price!
These individuals should be sacked and prosecuted for fraud and 'obtaining money under false pretences' ( HOW MUCH FUNDING HAS THE UNIVERISTY (sic) of EAST ANGLIA HAD ON THE BACK OF THESE FRAUDSTERS?).
Why has no one else ben able to detect the fraud ?
It is just like MADOFF. People just accepting it as 'the truth' .
WHAT IS MR BROWN NOW SAYING ABOUT HIS GLOBAL TAX LEVY BASED ON A FRAUD AND A LIE?
Gore is a major criminal in my opinion.
David Welch @ 8.43pm
You are the biggest 'denier' of reality on not just this topic but within this site. You said,
"I can see that people who happily steal e-mails also think they should be freely provided with information that has cost millions of pounds to collect. It`s like eyeing a mansion and expecting to move into it. A way of life that would have been viewed in horror by right-wingers in previous decades."
Who do you think paid for the collection of this data that 'cost millions'? The Taxpayer, that is who; the taxpayers across the world own this data, not the CRU and certainly not Dr Jones.
And, to think that extremely expensive decisions affecting billions of people may be taken by idiots advised by bigoted idiots without any challenge to the data and methodology employed by the bigoted idiots is simply deluded authoritarianism.
The data and methodology employed by the CRU should be released for examination by the scientific community; David Welch, surely this is "the right thing to do"?
Guy Lancaster wrote:
Nicely done. Didn't Copenhagen's rider also say "Publish and be damned". He might have been speaking to the BBC!
Thankyou for your kind words and very nicely done to you too!!
In fact double delicious irony.
No chance of the warmeratti trying to publish anything themselves by which we can damn them or the Blair Brown Confederation from reporting equitably.
One can't over state the role Al Gore has played in this whole AGW hysteria. Maybe a quote from Mr Gore himself is now more appropriate than ever.
"He betrayed this country. He played on our fears"
For climate change to be believable two criteria have to be satisified. The first is that the published record truly represents what has been happening to the world's weather. After the leaked emails that is now, at the very least, questionable.
The second is that climate models represent past climate to a high enough degreee of accuracy to make their projections believable. Why does the IPCC TAR4 have only two 1/8 page figures showing observed and modelled temperature and precipitation for the 20th century. Could it be that they realise that their models do not satisfy this second criterion? Christopher - time to start delving.
Hold on David Welch. The millions which it may have cost for Jones and his fellow fakes to collect IS OUR MONEY
Christopher,
An excellent article...I agree with you that this is certainly the scientific scandal of our times...so many stupid things are about to be done in the name of this farce....having just recovered from a massive financial crisis we are now slowly falling into another abyss of stupidity....
Once again well done, you have summarised all of the salient points perfectly...I will forward this link to everyone I know...I am currently 3/4 of the way through your book. I have been involved in the CC issue for sometime now and I would like to recommend your book to anyone concerned.
Forgive me for repeating this which I have already posted on a JD thread, but the BBC is committed to biased reporting on AGW. From page 40 of June 2007 BBC paper "FROM SEESAW TO WAGON WHEEL Safeguarding impartiality in the 21st century" to be found at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/review_report_research/impartiality_21century/report.pdf
"Climate change is another subject where dissenters can be unpopular. There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate change is definitely happening, and that it is at least predominantly man-made. But the second part of that consensus still has some intelligent and articulate opponents, even if a small minority.
Jana Bennett, Director of Television, argued at the seminar that ‘as journalists, we have the duty to understand where the weight of the evidence has got to. And that is an incredibly important thing in terms of public understanding – equipping citizens, informing the public as to what’s going to happen or not happen possibly over the next couple of hundred years.’
Roger Mosey, Director of Sport, said that in his former job as head of TV News, he had been lobbied by scientists ‘about what they thought was a disproportionate number of people denying climate change getting on our airwaves and being part of a balanced discussion – because they believe, absolutely sincerely, that climate change is now scientific fact.
The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus. But these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should, because it is not the BBC’s role to close down this debate. They cannot be simply dismissed as ‘flat-earthers’ or ‘deniers’, who ‘should not be given a platform’ by the BBC. Impartiality always requires a breadth of view: for as long as minority opinions are coherently and honestly expressed, the BBC must give them appropriate space. ‘Bias by elimination’ is even more offensive today than it was in 1926. The BBC has many public purposes of both ambition and merit – but joining campaigns to save the planet is not one of them. The BBC’s best contribution is to increase public awareness of the issues and possible solutions through impartial and accurate programming. Acceptance of a basic scientific consensus only sharpens the need for hawk-eyed scrutiny of the arguments surrounding both causation and solution. It remains important that programme-makers relish the full range of debate that such a central and absorbing subject offers, scientifically, politically and ethically, and avoid being misrepresented as standard-bearers. The wagon wheel remains a model shape. But the trundle of the bandwagon is not a model sound."
I found this in a US Senate Report
re: 400 scientists who are sceptical about Anthopogenic Global Warming.
This guy must have a crystal ball.
*******************
Paltridge wrote in an April 6, 2007 op-ed entitled "Global Warming – Not Really a Done Deal?"
Atmospheric Physicist Dr. Garth W. Paltridge, an Emeritus Professor from University of Tasmania, is another prominent skeptic. Paltridge was a Chief Research Scientist with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research, before taking up positions in 1990 as Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies at the University of Tasmania, and as CEO of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Center.
Paltridge questioned the motives of scientists hyping climate fears; "They have been so successful with their message of greenhouse doom that, should one of them prove tomorrow that it is nonsense, the discovery would have to be suppressed for the sake of the overall reputation of science."
Conclusion
The "Global Warming" fraud is little more than a scheme by bullying eco-fascists to deprive us of our liberty, by big government to spread its controlling tentacles into every aspect our lives, and scheming industrialists such as Al Gore to enrich themselves through carbon trading.
David Welch;
I have been following your comments on Mr Bookers excellent articles on AGW and MMCC (both complete and utter myths).
Where is YOUR evidence to the contrary? what statistical data are you basing YOUR nonsense on? I would be delighted to hear from you.
Indeed the coolists are right on the money. Mother Earth has been in a cooling phase since the late nineties. Read the latest IPCC report it's all in there. Some of their top scientists recently stated earth is not in danger, of course this didn't make headline news on the BBCs website or the Guardian newspaper..
You and your hysterical brigade of doom mongers are wrong. The truth will out.
Thank you Christopher for a clear summary of this disgraceful affair. I would only add that studies for which the data and methods are unforthcoming or non-existent are unrepeatable results, and must be considered false. This applies not only to some key papers in the field, but to the HadCRUT temperature record itself. Not only have the CRU people 'lost' some of the data, but it appears from the correspondence with Eschenbach that they have no record of which weather stations were included in the analysis, which were excluded, and why. What that means is that a crucial purported history of worldwide average temperatures, on which politicians are conspiring to build a truly rapacious global taxation system, has ZERO scientific validity.
We have no reason to think the other temperature histories are any better either, because the work that goes into them frankly consists in large part of selecting and altering the data. The researchers see nothing wrong with that. In their own minds, they are merely applying a host of 'corrections' to the data, so that it shows 'the true picture' as they see it. Nevertheless, what it boils down to is selection and alteration. That is why the public everywhere (not just in New Zealand) must be allowed to see what the data looked like before these alleged scientists went to work on it.
The whole thing is reminiscent of Blair's dodgy Iraq dossier, only this time the MPs have been fooled into going to war against their own country on the basis of false intelligence. Not that some of them even needed an excuse.
Ah David Welsh, you are so deliciously and predictably "right on". You pop out like a jack in a box to defend every orthodoxy.
By the way, why has the Beeb virtually dropped the term global warming in favour of the term climate change. Could it be that with the latter you can hedge your bets, cooler or warmer its still change, whilst with global warming you have a 50% chance of being wrong. Or maybe not if you fudge the data.
I would like to applaud the Telegraph for being the only part of the mainstream media to have the balls to cover this topic.
The lack of coverage by the rest of the media, particularly the BBC is shameful.
David Welch 08:43 PM
"The scandal here is how many people believe the rubbish Chris Booker writes."
I'm not sure whether to laugh, or apply for you to be protected as an endangered species.
Even Monbiot has called for the resignation of the most seriously implicated scientists, but then Monbiot is clever.
David Welch, I should give up gracefully, if I were you - now, preferably.
I think that you and your kind are beginning to swim against the turning tide of opinion. In short, the jig is up.
Anyway, I personally give a lot more credence to Mr. Booker's writings than yours could ever hope to deserve.
So, unless you have something constructive to say, just button it for a while, will you?
Dear me David Welch, you really are upset aren’t you.
This often happens when you discover your sacred idols have feet of clay.
You say, “I can see that people who happily steal e-mails also think they should be freely provided with information that has cost millions of pounds to collect. It`s like eyeing a mansion and expecting to move into it.”
For your information, the CRU is, like the Hadley centre, PUBLICALLY FUNDED. That means that when they receive a Freedom of Information request, they are legally obliged to respond. If they don’t they make themselves CRIMINALS. This they have done. They should be sacked.
I love the hypocrisy of this quote. You say “This invented scandal by those of the Coolist Religion may well earn them some more profits in book sales, but it will have grave consequences for future generations.”
Pot and kettle I’m afraid. The Warmist cause is OFFICIALLY on a par with religion, according to the judge a couple of weeks ago. You want profiteering, what about Al Gore? When he left the White House he was worth less than $2 million. Now he is worth over $12 million. How did that happen? Could it be the film and book sales? The film that had 9 errors in, according to the judge.
You say, “Whereupon they will view the present coolist campaign as badly as the 1930s appeasement of German power.”
The parallel you are looking for is the Eugenics scandal. Much like Climate Change.
Well done, Christopher.
As you know for over 3 years I have been trying to get answers out of BBC Director General Mark Thompson about their outrageous bias on climate change.
Having recently engaged the help of my MP, a BBC report; “From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel-Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st Century”, published in June 2007……’ came to light.
It concluded: ‘There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate change is definitely happening and that it is at least predominantly man-made… the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus'.
So there you have it, damned by their own hand...yet STILL the refuse to admit it! And that is why they have kept quiet about Climategate.
Anyone interested in taking the same road as me should write to:
Mark Thompson Esq
Director General
BBC Broadcasting House
Portland Place
London
W1A 1AA
Mark your envelope: Strictly Private & Confidential
If his desk gets deluged with letters from irate licence-fee payers, he will have to recognise he has a problem.
I agree with the article, very well written.
As an applied scientist I have always been sceptical of global warming 'science', due to the computer medelling (oops) used.
As I have commented here a number of times, until the Telegraph is willing to do an expose on 'climate change' of the same order as the 'expenses scandal', the pro scientists will win.
The sad truth is, and one seeemingly missed by the Telegraph, is that the 'expenses scandal' runs into millions of pounds, whereas the 'climate change scandal' will run into hundredes of billions of pounds.
Come on Telegraph, wake up.
Google also shows that the term "reptile people" appears on the internet 4,150,000 times. "Moon landings faked" gets 3,550,000 hits. Mariah Carey clocks up a wopping 13,600,000.
Google hits are not an indicator of credibility.
Margaret Fotherington, 58
on November 28, 2009
at 08:54 PM
You are quite correct, but since Christopher Booker didn't claim they were, your point is irrelevant.
Incidentally there is a lovely website called googlefight.com, where you put in two different searches and find out which gets more hits.
George Monbiot, even after his humilating apology and climbdown last week, gets only 148,000.
Christopher Booker on the other hand, gets 155,000.
Bu as you say, it proves nothing.
Philip Brooks @ 8:07:
In answer to your question "is there one internationally agreed method of measuring the earth's temperature which is agreed by both sides?" The simple answer is no.
Firstly the concept of a single temperature of the earth is nonsensical. How can an average of temperatures which range from -50C in Antartcica to +50C in deserts and which change from day to night and through the seasons have any meaning? Secondly, what are you measuring. The ocean temperatures, noting that the oceans hold over 95% of the stored heat that affects the climate? The air temperature, at what height above ground or all heights? How many measurement locations do you need, one every ten miles, hundred miles, thousand miles? What do you average; daliy min and daily max value, a reading every hour? How accurate are the thermometers? What happens when a thermometer in the countryside finds a lot of development has gone on and it becomes surrounded by concrete and tarmac? What happens when a thermometer is moved or is no longer used. You can see the difficulties.
There are basically four global datasets in use: CRU, which uses limited thermometer readings at selected land and ocean locations (adjusted for reasons that CRU keep secret); NASA/GISS which uses similar limited adjusted thermometer data; and two sets of satellite measurements since 1979 of the atmosphericin temperature over most of the earth's surface.
All of it is very uncertain and you have to remember that the changes in "global warming" that are being discussed are a fraction of a degree change in the "global temperature" over a hundred years. It is fraught with difficulty and easy for the keepers of the data to adjust the temperature to get whatever answer they want.
Not that it proves anything anyway, because the earth's climate is a chaotic system which is changing all the time and has done so for billions of years without any help from man.
Yet the main stream media are barely covering this news…
Some credit is due to the Telegraph, but they have't been brave enough to push it until now.
There is a Pulitzer prize going BEGGING, for anybody brave enough to take on the man made global warning 'religion'.. And of course the truly HUGE financial vested interests now.
Not the emails. Although that IS enough by itself.
But the code, all around the world IT professionals and serious scientists are telling each other the computer models and data is 'garbage'. Garbage is even used to describe the data in the notorious Harry_read_me.txt file.. (by their own reasearch staff, trying to get to grips with whatever someone wrote before in THE CODE of the COMPUTER models, and the DATASETS used by the IPCC, and virtually everywhere else.)
But being scientists and IT professionals, they are just talking about it on their own forums, in techy, nerdy geek hard science/IT speak..
The politicians or media do no look there or understand them..
What has happened, over the last 20-30 years a very narrow area of climate research has turned into a small group of scientists thinking we are saving the planet, and of course every other group has attached themselves to it, and has the media/political skills to promote it...
Remember when Global Warming - turned into Climate Change and wondered why?(bit embarrasing, mentioned in the emails - to paraphrase it. We cannot account for the lack of warming in our computer models- It is a travesty.)
Al Gore, has CGI of icesheets breaking off (pinched form the DAY AFTER TOMORROW, to scare people, and of course save the polar bears) the believers, scream DENIARS, at all those that ask for evidence, explanation of theories, or can I have some data , access to your computer models, to reproduce. test/prove the theory...
The scientists have chats about error bars, adjustment factors, methodology, statistical error, tree rings, bad code.. Al Gore and the believers, have hollywood, Bono and the polar bears.
99.9% of the world have know nothing about this for over a week the because the REAL scientists haven't been good at politics, or media. Ask ANY senior geologist, physicist, their candid thoughts on AGW.
To the BBC AGW (MMGW) is a religion, Mann and Gore are it’s prophets.
The key statement is:
"the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods."
"Academics", not solely "scientists". The media has failed miserably to do it's job of questioning what "experts" force on the people.
In this case, anyone with a modicum of intelligence knew something "fishy" was going on. The majority of voters did not believe in impending disaster.
Could even one MP table a PM question on the subject?
Cold the Turnip Taleban ask Dave what he's got to say ?
Can The DT do what it did with expenses and now expose the financial shenanigans which are going on?
Start with exposing Gore who is making hundreds of millions from the scam and the Carbon Credits trading market .
A paradigm shift is occuring around climate science and just because certain institutions and organisations are in denial(sic) doesn't mean it isn't happening. It has it's own momentum now and nothing will stop it.
Well done Mr Booker! Keep up the good work. The spell has been broken - even if the politicians have not realised it yet.
The BBC is going to be implicated in this scandal and is going down.
The internet now rules.
At the end of a very long day I'm tired and ready for bed, but I was mightily cheered earlier on by the story that an Al Gore book-signing session in Chicago had been disrupted by protesters.
He apparently fled in some haste, with the roof of his gas-guzzling limousine being pounded by what he would call "deniers".
A lot of people in the media are now looking at a lot of egg on their face. The BBC following discussions with 'eminent scientists' has decreed global warming a fact. And its has been reporting it so ever since. Given the BBC executives are only capable of the math to add up their expenses - we must ask who these scientists were. Dr Jones perhaps? No doubt the same group have been advising Torys and Labour.
And the independent investigation should be carried out by the fraud squad.
Google also shows that the term "reptile people" appears on the internet 4,150,000 times. "Moon landings faked" gets 3,550,000 hits. Mariah Carey clocks up a wopping 13,600,000.
Google hits are not an indicator of credibility.
It cannot be over emphasised how important this scandal is. In all other areas of suspected criminal activity involving a network of accomplices (eg financial corruption and child abuse), the police would be called in to make arrests and seize computer equipment for potential incriminating evidence.
The millions of tax-payer's money already siphoned off to finance Jones and those in collusion with him (much of it to pay for their hypocritical 'jet-set' lifestyles) is justification in itself for the police to act. The clear abuse of the roles the people entrusted to these individuals constitutes a betrayal of the highest order. The abuse of government-funded science - to advance a self-centred, nasty, ideology - must surely deserve at least a hefty fine and preferably a prison sentence.
We must have a credible inquiry. But the politicians are mainly signed up to the alarmist hypothesis. The few who can act independently will need to act very strongly together. Thank you Christopher for all that you do for truth and common sense here.
Good on you, Mr. Booker. All that you said in your marvellous book (or nearly all...) is coming to pass. The mess is unravelling daily.
The problem is, in all that we see and hear on the telly and radio the message does not seem to be reaching the public at large, or influential people like Ban Ki Moon who appear to be irreversibly sold on the man made climate change theory and are unlikely to be swayed.
It's as if they are lemmings, hell-bent on self destruction and the surrender of democracy and reasoned thinking to the demon of global governance. They will sign away our livelihoods, economies and freedoms at Copenhagen given half the chance. We need a stay of execution, a white knight to snatch the pens away until the science is more properly understood - and that's years away.
Why is there this fear of reporting the truth? Is there a sort of Spanish Inquisition poised to pounce on any detractor who sticks his head above the parapet? It would certainly appear so.
As usual straight to the point Mr Booker.
I doff my cap. Thank you for all your efforts over the last few years. I feel the tide is turning at long last.
Ink 06:55 PM
"Unless we find other sorts of power generation than carbon forms of power generation we will be at war over resources all the time."
We will not run out. Every scientific advance gives us access to new resources.
We wont run out. Unless climategate inspired economic and societal damages causes us to stop trying.
>There is no raw world climate data lost by the Hadley Centre, and even if they refuse to provide processed data for others, the Coolists could obtain these data sets from the original collectors.
I can see that people who happily steal e-mails also think they should be freely provided with information that has cost millions of pounds to collect. It`s like eyeing a mansion and expecting to move into it. A way of life that would have been viewed in horror by right-wingers in previous decades.
CB also claims that past temperatures have been adjusted downwards, and of course that all the writings about cold and snow-lie in past centuries have been newly injected into our libraries by the Hadley team.
This invented scandal by those of the Coolist Religion will have grave consequences for future generations.
The cynicism being inculcated into the public about all forms of scholarship and science will only be undone when in the next decades many humans suffer from the climate change.
Whereupon they will view the present coolist campaign as badly as the 1930s appeasement of German power.
Master of P:
Nicely done. Didn't Copenhagen's rider also say "Publish and be damned". He might have been speaking to the BBC!
I always was suspect of motives and competence; perhaps these Tip-Top Climatologists were simply too buried in their theory.
Even I am surprised to discover that the IPCC was in fact a small cabal of Tip-Top Crimatologists.
Berni Madoff pales in comparison.
One simple question, where in the mathematics, physics, data analysis, or computer code did the climate scientists go wrong?
Nearly every single comment is a personal attack or a statement of personal feelings, but you see none of it changes the laws of mathematics, or physics, it doesn't change the data, or the laws of logic that determine the computer code.
If it is a hoax, then it should be easy to show exactly where they went wrong.
Talk to a Climate Skeptic:
http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/
The hacked emails might be an eye-opener but I would love to see the gist of emails flying back and forward from the CRU now that the proverbial has hit the fan.
As for the reluctance of the MSM reporting, why not persuade your own editor to run this as a front page issue, just as was done with the expenses scandal?
Excellent article. I have been of the opinion this was a huge funding /taxation scam for some years.It has never been based on any real data. Facts are what they should be working on but they are rather inconvenient , they don't bear out the theory they wish to promote and get funding for. It is appalling, if not surprising, that the BBC and the politicians are keeping quiet, but then, they have never had the interest of this country and its people at heart. Power, by any means....
The silence among the British establishment is deafening. There should be massive banner headlines/reports in all media of whatever format.
All the while the hopelessly inadequate and partisan BBC continues to bang on about bloody Copenhagen. Copenhagen, as we know, was a horse, now dead. The warmists are still and will continue to flog the AGW dead horse next month, and this, by a delicious irony, in the city of Copenhagen.
Fantastic.
Sorry must go and get some more ice fro my extremely large g & t.
Hurrah to the hackers.
Try typing "Climategate" into the BBC website search box. Nothing, rien, nichts, niente, nada etc. The most expensive propaganda machine in history.
Ink (Nov 28, 2009 at 06:55 PM):
"Unless we find other sorts of power generation than carbon forms of power generation we will be at war over resources all the time. And in the current world it is considered rude to go to war over resources however necessary they are."
That may well be true, but that is no reason to invent a lot of nonsense about man made global warming. We must do things for the right reason (i.e. energy security) otherwise we end up with ridiculous follies like "carbon capture" and on-shore wind farms.
We also need an inquiry into the BBC's partiality in respect of the AGW scare.
As others have said, almost as big a story is the response of the MSM , and the BBC and Sky in particular and their Ostrich like coverage of the meat of the story. without the media pressure , the politicians will continue to stick their fingers in their collective ears , and ignore the electorate.
Mr Booker and others
It has been my pleasure to come along with you on this journey to the truth. Cap and Tax is now dead in the US.
However we are far from out of the woods as we have a board member of the Socialist International, Carol Browner, in charge of the EPA. Yes I know they changed the website to take her name off it but we know who she is and what she was, we know.
So what I'd expect is that as they can't get the legislation through the Senate that they'll try to do it by the backdoor via increased EPA regulations.
And that will be no fun task now that enough of the general population are onto the scam big time. There will be howls and screams of protest so loud that they will scare the bejesus out of the Liberals in Congress with the mid terms coming.
So go ahead Ms. Browner, make the GOP's day.
What happens in the UK I have no idea. The Old Country has been surrendered by your Pols to the Commisars of the EUSSR and as you're are at their tender mercy I really don't hold out much hope for you. I am so sorry.
I tried to ask this question on a previous Telegraph site appearing in yesrday's edition. I am not a scientist , but irrespective of which side of the debate you favour, is there one internationally agreed method of measuring the earth's temperature which is agreed by both sides?
jkoos on November 28, 2009 at 07:17 PM
"There is only one explanation for this unethical behavior. The successful pursuit of government funds would end if the entire enterprise proved to be a mistake. The truth would like free them from funding and the inability to obtain a job solving real problems."
There's another reason, Left-wing ideology.
The scientists in question were "Watermelons", green on the outside and red on the inside.
There's a lot of that in modern academia, unfortunately.
I am someone who is neither a global warming sceptic and neither am I a supporter of the global warming theory. The fact is like most of the people I speak to - I just dont know. I assumed that somewhere in the not too distant future we could conclude once and and for all whether global was real or not and whether or not we are the cause of the earths climate warming. The information contained in these emails is very significant and paints a picture that contradicts the confidence in global warming theory that Warmists have been projecting.
However, what I find even more disturbing is the lack of coverage on the BBC about this. I mean this pretty damning stuff! You can find it almost everywhere else - except the BBC? It is glaringly obvious that the BBC is just not going to cover this important news.
For me as a neutral observer I think credibility has just flown out of the window!
The BBC have covered it, those smug gits Punt and Dennis did this weekend. Not commenting on the content of the EMAILS but that any one should think them important when all the clever people know that climate change (not AGW though)is happening.
It must be very exhilarating to be proved right all along, Mr Booker. You and James Delingpole deserve full recognition for your tireless campaigning for the facts.
What soon-to-be-sacked Professor Jones and his coilleagues deserve, on the other hand, is unsuitable for detailing in a family newspaper.
The Wegman report (http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf) makes fascinating reading - its lack of reporting in the UK shows how blind our media are. For example his finding:
"In our further exploration of the social network of authorships in temperature
reconstruction, we found that at least 43 authors have direct ties to Dr. Mann by virtue of coauthored papers with him. Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface. This committee does not believe that web logs are an appropriate forum for the scientific debate on this issue."
It is a disgrace that the UK establishment (scientific and political) has simply ignored the warning signs!
AS I KEEP REMINDING PEOPLE:
AL GORE AND KEN LAY (DISGRACED AND DECEASED CEO OF ENRON) WERE IN BUSINESS TOGETHER
LAY CREATED THE MARKET IN 'CARBON CREDITS' (ANOTHER SCAM LIKE CDOs WHICH NEARLY DESTROYED ALL THE BANKS)
GORE IS MAKING HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM THIS SCAM
I WAS ACCOSTED IN LEICESTER SQ TODAY BY YOUNG PEOPLE WITH GREEN PAINTED FACES HANDING OUT LEAFLETS ON 'MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING'...THEY HAD T-SHIRTS WITH 'DONT BE A DENIER' !
THERE ARE BILLIONS TO BE MADE AND BEING MADE OUT OF THIS SCAM AND THE YOUNG ARE THE PERFECT 'USEFUL IDIOTS' TO PROMOTE THE LIE
SHOW THEM A POLAR BEAR OR A SEAL CUB AND THEY WILL KILL FOR IT !
LOOK AT THE ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS AND YOU HAVE SEEN THE FUTURE.........
"There is no reason why all of the global warming data, and each equation used in global warming calculations should not be made available"
Not according to Dr Jones - "Why should I give you my data so you can use it to look for flaws in my work?"
This fundamental lack of knowing how science works or caring if science works is why he should be SACKED. Right now.
It's amazing that a group of Climate Change Torquemadas can torture raw data until it screams, and the Main Stream Media in the US turns a deaf ear.
I have been immersed in The Real Global Warming Disaster for some time now, and consequently the news of the leaks was no great suprise to me.
Certainly a completely independent enquiry is called for.
Excellent, focussed, succinct.
I'm afraid the sort of narcissism that gives rise to blind arrogance is cultivated at university and endemic to government. It is the backbone of those cultures, in fact, to presume to be superior and presume to dictate rules by which others live. It used to be called royalty.
Thanks Christopher. The supervising bodies in this case, are trying hard to drown the chorus of voices demanding full and open investigation. The evidence is there for all to see and read - but complicit authorities like BBC, The Times, network television and Parliament are whistling, stamping their feet and thrusting fingers in their ears so as to NOT HEAR the chorus. Heaven forbid.
There are three scandals here and one conundrum.
Firstly that science has been polluted and corrupted by those whose independence has been compromised and whose actions have been, as you've pointed out, illegal.
Secondly that alternative scientific opinions have been suppressed by both the AGW scientists and their political masters,
Thirdly that, even though the very foundation of this dubious theory* has been illuminated as being corrupt, the mainstream media and the diplomatic sheep have ignored the importance of these revelations, and are progressing as though nothing has changed.
Everything has changed.
The conundrum of course is this: throughout the whole of earth history climate has changed. It's what climate does. What sort of arrogance or ignorance drives the AGW movement to even think that the human race can ever achieve climatic stability?
You may as well try to control the tides.
* Being that: you can keep every one of thousands of meteorological variables constant and simply concentrate on atmospheric chemistry and within that, only CO2, to map a climatic future? It's as hopeless as predicting the course of a war by the analysis of a tin of bully beef.
Simplistic gibberish that the whole of the world's media and the majority of the world's governments have swallowed hook, line and sinker.
The most popular activity in the world right now…
Delete files Y/N ? Yes
Delete files Y/N ? Yes
Delete files Y/N ? Yes
Delete files Y/N ? Yes
Delete files Y/N ? Yes
Delete files Y/N ? Yes
Delete files Y/N ? Yes
Delete files Y/N ? Yes
Delete files Y/N ? Yes
Delete files Y/N ? Yes
“Professor, the FBI is on the phone”
“Tell them I’m busy right now”
Delete files Y/N ? Yes
Delete files Y/N ? Yes
Delete files Y/N ? Yes
Delete files Y/N ? Yes
Delete files Y/N ? Yes
Delete files Y/N ? Yes
There is only one explanation for this unethical behavior. The successful pursuit of government funds would end if the entire enterprise proved to be a mistake. The truth would like free them from funding and the inability to obtain a job solving real problems.
Excellent assessment of the CRU contrick. Dr Bratby is correct that the BBC's refusal to give this any airtime is scandalous.
I really feel that much about the news in the UK is being manipulated to control the public.
Why are we not hearing more about this disgraceful behaviour?
Why are we not hearing more about the rise of support for UKIP (I know it is off topic, but another example of the manipulation that is happening around us)?
Why are we not hearing more about evil that happens in the Family Courts?
Why is there no outcry from the media about the imposed regional assemblies in England even after the population voted 80/20 against (NE England)?
Collusion and complacency is depriving the UK of real government who are working for the benefit of it's population.
The inevitable result of giving the climate activists their way would be that 'ordinary' people (you and me) would be forced to live in a society where all the advances of the past 200+ years were cast aside, ostensibly for the good of the planet, simply because development uses too much power. (If you believe I am wrong, consider whether the state-approved replacement for the incandescent lightbulb is an improvement.)
Only the climate activists, their political masters and a select few (some being more equal than others) would be exempt.
This would, of course, have the double benefit of 'decreasing the surplus population'; so many 'green' activists do seem to be anti-human and anti-people.
Who would have expected the activists' charlatanry to be unmasked so suddenly and so sensationally? Thank God for the internet and one right-thinking individual.
George Monbiot deserves credit for dissociating himself from these activists and shows himself at least principled in the process.
However, the BBC's deliberate suppression of this news is the ultimate betrayal of the 'ordinary' people who pay for its upkeep and it has forfeited any right to their protection or respect. Its Pravdaesque behaviour is nothing short of a national scandal.
Good luck with your new book, Mr Booker; I wish it and you every success.
As an American it's ridiculous that I have to read foreign sources to find out what's going on in the world.
This is an outrage how Americans have been and are continuing to be duped by Globull Warming.
Please keep up your excellent reporting because our media sure as heck isn't.
Are you saying that having Lord Rees chairing an independent enquiry would be rather like having Josef Goebbels as the Chairman overseeing events at Nuremberg?
There is no reason why all of the global warming data, and each equation used in global warming calculations should not be made available on the internet so any person on this planet, from those holding PhD's, to the budding grade school climatologist, can review it. That any of the data is lost, or that one even must resort to Freedom Of Information Act options to access a single bit of the data, hints of suppression, and provides the breeding ground for scandal.
Utterly correct, Mr Booker. You call the scandal exactly as it is; the greatest scientific scam ever.
Where is the outrage from our politicians? Where is the calls for accountability from our leaders? Brown? Cameron? Clegg?
Silence. How abject.
May I add a further question regarding the supposed 'loss' of decades of crucial raw global climate data records collated by Hadley CRU?
Given the significance of such raw climate data and the costs of government policy decisions that are taken as a direct result of information relating to CRU's data, is it not astonishing that Prof Philip Jones has not been held responsible for such an incompetent act of gross negligence?
Consider that for a moment. It's exactly what his organisation is in existence for; to study climate data, and he simply offers up that they've 'lost' an entire global data-set!
Astounding.
Imagine if the head of the Inland Revenue casually announced his organisation had 'lost' the entire record of every UK tax payer and every set of returned company accounts. Would he stay in his job? Not a chance.
It is beyond understanding how prof Jones has not been sacked for that act of incompetence alone.
Unless of course the data isn't really 'lost' at all...
But Booker and Bratby
Unless we find other sorts of power generation than carbon forms of power generation we will be at war over resources all the time. And in the current world it is considered rude to go to war over resources however necessary they are.
The Welsh Assembly has just decided to give £4 million over five years to a group to look into how climate change will affect people in Wales. I know one thing for certain another load of people who cannot earn their own money now will be living off the poor taxpayer for the next five years researching climate chamge and no doubt finding lots of it about to justify further funding. That is what climate change is all about, funding for research to enable the research to show more funding is needed.
Christopher:
Excellent article. As ever, you take your time and come up with the gooods.
As a scientist I concur wholly with you. Of particular importance to me is the apparent complete lack of any quality control of both the data and the computer code.
It is nothing short of outrageous.
And the BBC's unwillingness to report on this in its news is equally outrageous.
A truly independent inquiry is definitely needed.