JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



ClimateGate — “covered” but not exposed in The Australian

Hackers Expose Climate Brawl Monday Nov 23, 2009

UPDATE Mon 23rd: The Australian put this story on Page 1, and added an image file of “quotes” for which they deserve kudos. This blog comments on the online version. The in-print version is better (see at the bottom).

Caroline Overington writes up the story of the hackers breaking in to the East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU), but misses the meat of the story. The Australian can tick the box “Covered”, but not tick the box “Incisive”.

She includes a few of the emails, but misses the bombshells while wasting column space discussing irrelevancies. As the Australian Senators sit down to assess the meaningfulness of an Emissions Trading Scheme this week, we can only hope they have better sources of information.

The extraordinary emails from the East Anglia CRU expose how corrupt climate science has become. They are nothing less than startling. Leading researchers have been caught discussing how to “hide the decline”, how to refuse their scientific and legal obligations, and threatening to blackball professional journals to stop legitimate research being published. These same researchers have a long persistent record of hiding data and when faced with a series of legal requests, have claimed they’ve “lost” the entire original global set of climate records. The whole set. Really?

She writes that the climate scientists say they have been taken out of context. But she doesn’t tell us that they’ve been caught saying “delete those files” in the context of an FOI request.

These points are the ones that every voting Australian should know, they expose the IPCC claims of transparent “expert” review for what they are, brazen, baseless PR. Phil Jones’ embarrassing emails are being quoted all over the web, and Overington manages to find all the ones showing the East Anglia boys are petty, cheering over the death of a skeptic, but not the ones showing that they repeatedly hide awkward results, adjust data, and do their utmost to distort the normal scientific process. It’s no big news that a scientist might be caught being bad mannered. It’s unprofessional, but hardly shakes the very core of science, which is what some of the other emails do. Emails that go unmentioned.

She writes that the climate scientists say that they have been taken out of context. But she doesn’t tell us that they’ve been caught saying “delete those files” in the context of an FOI request.

And it’s not like there was just one moment of “hiding data”. It’s a repeated thread and a constant fear for Phil Jones:

“Don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites… (skeptics) have been after the data for years…. I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.”

“You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also…”

“PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!”

“Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith
will do likewise.  Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new
email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise. I see that CA
claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!”

Phil Jones is a lead author of several IPCC reports. Does the headline “Lead IPCC Author Caught Altering Data” not have some appeal?

“Eminent” researchers discuss techniques that might allow them to reject the reasonable requests for public data at their public institution. They talk about hiding behind the data protection act, about someone hiding behind their “retirement”, and they fish for possible “confidentiality agreements” as a way of getting out of meeting their scientific and legal obligations.

The closest Overington comes to hitting a target that matters is with the 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.” Dr Trenberth says data published last August “shows there should be even more warming . . . the data are surely wrong.”

It’s as if a journalist covered a bank robbery, and reported that the gang turned up badly dressed and tripped off an alarm, but not that they got away with five million dollars.

This is a clue to just how manufactured the “consensus” is, and how fake the veneer of certainty is. One of the main modelers is admitting the climate models have got it wrong. But it’s only in a “momentary” sense, so it lacks punch and comes with a its own cover…”the data must be wrong”.

The real story here is missing. It’s as if a journalist covered a bank robbery, and reported that the gang turned up badly dressed and tripped off an alarm, but not that they got away with five million dollars. And the real test will come. The bank cameras clearly identify the law-breakers. Will anyone report it if the police don’t question the crooks?

UPDATE: The Australian put this story on Page 1, and added an image file of “quotes” for which they deserve kudos. That was not apparent from the website edition (and the print copy was not available when I wrote this blog post). Clearly The Australian realizes the import of this story and they should be commended. As well, the print edition contains some quotes in an image file which is also not available online. It’s a shame the online version is not a full copy.

The print image contains the quote from Trenberth about being unable to account for the lack of warming.… and it also contains a quote from Phil Jones about “using the Nature trick… to hide the decline“. While the article still doesn’t tackle the gravity of hiding and adjusting the data, or deleting records in the face of legal requests to see them, it isn’t completely missing the point as the online edition suggests.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.5/10 (2 votes cast)
ClimateGate — "covered" but not exposed in The Australian, 5.5 out of 10 based on 2 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/262sn2w

45 comments to ClimateGate — “covered” but not exposed in The Australian

  • #
    mondo

    At least they have a story on the topic Jo. The Fairfax press still has nothing at all on the issue.

    Andrew Bolt at the Herald-Sun (a News Ltd Publication, like the Oz) has been doing a sterling job (especially on his blog) but the rest of the Autralian media has been curiously quiet on this important story. Strange when they normally leap on every single reason to say OMGIWTWT (Oh My God, Its Worse Than We Thought). And as you point out, in a week where it is important that the Australian peoople and their politicians are addressing the CPRS.

    Andrew Bolt is appearing on Channel 9 this morning at 7:50 am AEST. I am sure that he will raise this issue.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Keep in mind that postmodern philosophy assumes that truth is a social construct and that knowledge can only be established by consensus (see Kant et.al. for instructive detail). These basic assumptions lead to the conclusion that all one needs to do to eliminate an unpleasant/unacceptable fact is evade it. If it can’t be evaded, then change its name and talk about it in a different way. If that doesn’t work, then you accuse the person(s) who point out the unpleasant/unacceptable fact with being uncooperative and not a good team player – or worse. However, one must NEVER EVER address the unpleasant/unacceptable fact as it actually is and take it into account within any of your thinking or communications. Reality is to be what “they” say it is and your task is simply to accept what “they” say. What you perceive and think based upon what you experience cannot possibly be right simply because YOU perceived it and thought about it. You must always have it filtered through the perceptions and thoughts of the *sacred* other (eg. peer review). That this process has a problem of infinite regression is one of the more important unpleasant/unacceptable facts the post modern philosophy practitioner must evade. Hence, the observed reporting of ClimateGate.

    ClimateGate was “covered” but not actually covered. Thereby banishing the unpleasant/unacceptable facts to the realm of the blanked out. The reporter was not given a direct order to misrepresent. He/She simply knew instinctively what to say and what not to say and was simply being a good postmodern philosophy practitioner.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robert E. Phelan

    I’ve sent the following e-mail to my congressional delegation here in the States. I hope you’ll do the same in Oz.

    By now you must be aware of the release of thousands of e-mails and documents from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University by what is probably a conscience-stricken insider. The e-mails to and from some of the leading researchers in the field and key players in the IPCC document attempts to manipulate scientific data, control the scientific review process, subvert FOI officers, destroy materials that should have been preserved under FOI regulations to avoid release, and the use misleading and deceptive information to influence both the public at large and policy makers.

    It is imperative that you get out in front of this issue and take the lead in calling for a congressional inquiry. So far, there has been muted reaction from the press, but you can find interesting articles here:

    Andrew Revkin, New York Times
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=1&hpw

    Keith Johnson, Wall Street Journal
    http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/11/20/hacked-sensitive-documents-lifted-from-hadley-climate-center/

    The British Blogger Bishop Hill has an easy-to-read summary of major issues here:
    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html

    The Blogger Anthony Watts describes the on-going events here:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/

    Jeff Id, whose The Air Vent blog was the site where the whistle-blower first announced the release of the files on a server in Russia, has a number of posts.
    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/

    It is worth noting that Jeff was away on a hunting trip at the time and got back to find a bomb shell sitting on his blog. He removed it, but it had already been discovered by a number of readers.

    The actual e-mails and documents can be found here, among other places:
    http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/search.php

    This issue needs to be thoroughly aired in a Congressional Investigation before our nation damages its economy, security and liberty any further.

    Sincerely,


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Knowles

    As a new-comer to this site I’m delighted to find a journalistic type who copes with science. The articles are balanced and literary and attract some sensible comments so I thank you all. I would however ask that people refrain from slagging the opposition and adhere to a more scientific critique.
    These leaked/hacked items reveal a sad systemic degradation of the scientific process and worse still, most people I’ve run it by, fail to grasp the consequence of what has been going on for years. Perhaps it’s not surprizing given the nature of the Overington article and the standard of science journalism generally. Did she miss the point or deliberately walk around a bomb-shell ? Perhaps they feel its best to “keep us in the dark and feed us mushroom compost”? I shall persist in spreading the word.
    Keep up the good work.
    Thanks,
    JPAK.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David Legge

    Thank you Jo for your wonderful website, and for being one of the many voices of reason in this mad climate
    debate. You may have seen it already, but I encourage all to watch this wonderful interview with Lord Christopher Monckton on Canadian television, that was recently aired. He really does put things into sane perspective.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Peter Pond

    Still no coverage at the ABC, despite the BBC at least mentioning it. I have emailed “our ABC” to ask why not.

    Science is definitely the loser in all this. In the next survey of credibility, “scientists” may be ranked lower than “second-hand car salesmen”?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    “The reporter was not given a direct order to misrepresent. He/She simply knew instinctively what to say and what not to say and was simply being a good postmodern philosophy practitioner.”

    Lionell, brilliantly put – you have nailed postmodernity! There is no conspiracy as such, simply that Gramsci’s “Long March” through the institutions has had a measure of success.

    To anyone who is interested in some background, “The Real Matrix” articles by Steven Yates give excellent and well-researched insight into this process:

    “The Real Matrix – Part 1″

    (there are 7 parts – do read them all)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Alan

    It’s amazing how science works. Within hours, HOURS!, of the release of the emails, we had cold wet weather in Victoria, the oceans started to cool, glaciers started to advance and the law of conservation of energy went into hibernation.

    I just hope no-one finds a snarky email from Pierre-Gilles de Gennes complaining about colleagues who were sceptical of his work on soft matter [http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1991/gennes-lecture.pdf] because the minute they do, the LCD display on my computer is going to stop working.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Here’s the latest by Prof. Judy A. Curry: On the Credibility of Climate Research

    http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1265.last

    A very good article by a person with unpeckable credentials! She really hits it on the Head!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Lionell Griffith: Post 2,

    Very well stated, Lionell, good job!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    kuhnkat

    Denny,

    The only thing Prof. Curry hits on the head is a perfect apologist attitude and view of the facts.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Denny in your link in #8 I’m not clear if the italics and bold are your words, or your emphasis added to the prof’s words? Cheers.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Anne,

    Thanks for the link. I found the 7 parts interesting and essentially correct except for an important error of omission.

    That omission is that reality exists and is real. It ultimately cannot be faked no matter who desires to do so, no matter how much they want it to be faked, nor how much force they exert to cause it to be faked.

    The human mind is what it is and it can function only according to what it is. Man cannot live as a mindless brute. He can live only if he has knowledge of how to live. He can acquire that knowledge only if conditions are such that he can make that knowledge his own. “The Real Matrix” attempts to substitute its own will, its own choice, its own knowledge by force, fraud, and stealth. This does not produce productive slaves. It produces creatures who survive only by accident if by that much. Ultimately, “The Real Matrix” will fail by its own stated standards.

    I refer you to an essay I posted on my blog Intellectual Ammunition entitled The Source. This essay outlines a fundamental mental process by which modern technological civilization was created, maintained, and advanced. It is this process that the actions of “The Real Matrix’, top down central control, and the initiation of force make inoperative. It is this what grantees their ultimate failure.

    The grand irony is that the wealth they steal becomes empty of value because their actions have destroyed the source of value: man’s mind. They will achieve only their own defeat. Our challenge is to stay out of the way and allow them to defeat themselves. They can do a lot of damage on the way out. We can rebuild. They can’t.

    PS: ClimateGate is an example of the con men of “The Real Matrix” providing for their own destruction. They can’t help it. It is an inevitable consequence of their fundamental idea that reality can be faked and that they can get away with it. It simply can’t be done beyond the range of a momentary fantasy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    I’ve noticed a lot of comments on the Internet today about the “coverage” of ClimateGate! Mostly in controlled surprise that the “Media” isn’t picking this up and presenting it to the General Public. Well, I’m going to assume here that these People really “haven’t” done much research on how the Alarmists work! Well, I’m going to post “The Ten Rules of the Left” in response..Just maybe you will get the idea of how Alarmists work. Yes, 99% are from the Left!

    The Ten Operating Rules of The Left

    1. If you don’t think about it, it won’t happen.

    2. If you don’t talk about it, it isn’t happening.

    3. If you don’t identify it, it didn’t happen.

    4. If the first three rules don’t work, change what you call it, and you will change what it is.

    5. If rule 4 doesn’t work, accuse any convenient person or group not agreeing with you of causing it.

    6. Guess. After all, no one can really know what will work and we had to do something.

    7. If rule 6 doesn’t work, pass laws enforcing rules 1 through 4 on everyone but “your” side.

    8. If rule 7 doesn’t work, break out the riot police and establish martial law, build “Social Cooperation Enhancement” camps, and use the riot police to “invite” the opposition to take up residence in them.

    9. If rule 8 doesn’t work, say there are no rules. So you can do whatever you can get away with at public expense. See rule 4 for further details.

    10. If rule 9 doesn’t work, say you had good intentions so it really wasn’t your fault. See rules 4 and 5 for further details.

    I would like to think that after you get past No.4 that you would get what’s happening after ClimateGate.
    As you can see, this is “exactly” what is happening. Especially on the first four points. Push comes to shove will have to be the “same” People that’s doing it now and Fox Network! NONE of the others care or wish to talk about this because of what they had stated in the Past about the Global Warming Agenda. They are commited to this so why stick your Head around the Door and bring up things when the “Biased Media” already has in CONTROL of information towards our Politicians and towards People who do not research on their own what Climate Change really is. It’s a Very Complex Climate System that Man is STILL learning about. Since he’s learning, How can one expect to have the “right” information for Computer Modelling. It’s imposible to put in the “proper” information because there’s “more information” needed to be researched, to understand and to present to any Super Computer that’s out there. They are only as good as “what’s” being programmed into them..

    Sorry for those who have been here a while and have seen this “speech” before but I have to compete with the Alarmists and constantly remind like Lionel Griffith has done, co2isnotevil has done, Joanne Nova has done, Anne-Kit Litter has done, Brian G. Valentine has constantly done to where He’s speechless or ready to explode and many others that have joined this great site to promote fairness in Science.

    I think as Realists we are seeing how entrenched this Issue is in a lot of places, people and events. If spun correctly, this “ClimateGate” will help, but I don’t not think People can really understand how Powerful Money can change the “eyes” of Man. A Trillion Dollars cannot be understood by the Mind! Behold, the evidence! Please research, please read, please understand the best you can and “ask questions”! Tell your Congressman Man/Woman what you believe..because they are “only” guessing otherwise on what you believe and want! God Bless that are Blessed and Bless those who need to be Blessed. Amen!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    MattB: Post 11,

    Denny in your link in #8 I’m not clear if the italics and bold are your words, or your emphasis added to the prof’s words? Cheers.

    Matt, I don’t see anything in “bold” but in italics is the Title to the Article..Hope this helps and of course if you went to the site you would see the “title”..enjoy..very good points!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Denny – your intro bit in the link says “I would like to state at this time that all bold and itallics are mine.” there is not much bolding, but a lot of red italicised text.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Charles Bourbaki

    I can find no reference to any sort of bitter controvesy surrounding de Gennes’ work on liquid crystals. But even if there was, I suspect that he had a little more class than these characters and would not have descended to their levels. Compare his words on page 5, “Another amusing analogy relates the smectics A to superconductors. It was discovered simultaneously by the late W. McMillan (a great scientist, who we all miss) and by us.” with the words of Prof Jones who on hearing of the death of John Daly describes it as “cheering news“.

    I’m not sure what you mean by “and the law of conservation of energy went into hibernation”. Possibly a feeble attempt at sarcasm.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    kuhnkat: Post 10,

    The only thing Prof. Curry hits on the head is a perfect apologist attitude and view of the facts.

    kuhnkat, I do not think she’s apologizing anything. Sorry, didn’t see that but if you saw facts in the overall “nature” of the article then I hope you agree, her anology was very good indeed..and True.

    You know this is a very good example how People view and understand “terms” in revelancy towards what is stated and then put to understanding. Misconception is most common amoung People until a “common” dialog in understanding has occured…I see this also within the ClimateGate Scientists and Scientist that want to share common terminology. What one assumes isn’t really so..You see a very good example of this at WUWT and the article was from Willis Eschenbach’s article “The Steel Greenhouse”. You have to read it because a number of Physicis argued amoungest each other! All because of what I stated in this paragraph.

    kuhnkat, try reading it again and point out what it is that give you this deduction! Then post the paragraph here and we will discuss it, OK? Also,I’m NOT saying that “you” misunderstood what you read, OK! Just thought I should clear that one up….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Lionell Griffith: Post 12,

    The grand irony is that the wealth they steal becomes empty of value because their actions have destroyed the source of value: man’s mind. They will achieve only their own defeat. Our challenge is to stay out of the way and allow them to defeat themselves. They can do a lot of damage on the way out. We can rebuild. They can’t.

    You know Lionell, I would love to sit down with you and have that “long evening” chat! It would be awesome in my Life’s travels…This insight is probably the most prophetic I’ve seen on this Issue. I too really do not see another way unless a “number” of People from the Alarmist side come out and state the truth! If that were to happen it will have to happen soon, I’m not holding my Breath! Thank you Lionell for such an insight..


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I’ve added these updates to the blog post.

    UPDATE Mon 23rd: The Australian put this story on Page 1, and added an image file of two “quotes” for which they deserve kudos. This blog comments on the online version. The in-print version is better (See at the bottom).

    UPDATE: The Australian put this story on Page 1, and added an image file of “quotes” for which they deserve kudos. That was not apparent from the website edition (and the print copy was not available when I wrote this blog post). Clearly The Australian realizes the import of this story and they should be commended. As well, the print edition contains some quotes in an image file which is also not available online. It’s a shame the online version is not a full copy.

    The print image contains the quote from Trenberth about being unable to account for the lack of warming.… and it also contains a quote from Phil Jones about “using the Nature trick… to hide the decline“. While the article still doesn’t tackle the gravity of hiding and adjusting the data, or deleting records in the face of legal requests to see them, it isn’t completely missing the point as the online edition suggests.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1265.last

    Denny – Great article,

    “I have some sympathy for Phil Jones’ concern of not wanting to lose control of his personal research agenda by having to take the time to respond to all the queries and requests regarding his dataset, but the receipt of large amounts of public funding pretty much obligates CRU to respond to these requests. The number of such requests would be drastically diminished if all relevant and available data and metadata were made publicly accessible, and if requests from Steve McIntyre were honored (I assume that many spurious requests have been made to support Steve McIntyre’s request, and these would all disappear). ”

    I think MattB has a valid question. When you say “I would like to state at this time that all bold and italics are mine.”

    You mean the emphasis was added by you, but the words belong to Judy right? Your comment could be misinterpreted to mean you added in words…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Matty

    If anyone watched “Insiders’ yesterday they would have seen some pretty laid back journalists refer to Nick Minchin’s scepticism as “an article of faith”. What a cute reversal of reality. And reading Brian Toohey today would seem to confirm that our press have a bit more than their journalistic cred invested on this issue. Almost looks as it they share a moral duty to shepherd this through. What they have no control over but, is the way ordinary people are caring less and less, without even reading the science, and I don’t think that shift will reverse now. Recalcitrant press, smart people.

    Since WW2, has a single other issue received more oxygen than AGW? Would be fascinating sociologically if it was ordinary who turned the taps off.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brendan H

    Denny: “…but I don’t not think People can really understand how Powerful Money can change the “eyes” of Man.”

    Well, if they don’t not think I can see how People might get confused. Personally, I don’t not think about Man, but I know that Powerful Money can sure change the eyes of Wo-man.

    “I too really do not see another way unless a “number” of People from the Alarmist side come out and state the truth!”

    I am not a number. I am a free Man. Nevertheless, I would like to come out and state the truth, or better still, The Truth. Problem is, I suspect I’m a postmodern philosophy practitioner, and wouldn’t know The Truth if it bit me on the behind.

    I see there is an article on this site from a while back promising that climate scepticism was becoming hip. Is now the time? I desperately want to be hip, but my global warming friends might laugh at me. In typical postmodern fashion, I’m conflicted. Help!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Denny, those rules apply to all of politics (in the present day at any rate). “Left” or “Right” only a fool would see any difference. Can you show me a mainstream political party interested in honesty, transparency and liberty?

    Obama was really into the “transparency” rhetoric right up to about 5 minutes after he was sworn in, then he dropped neatly back in line with party policy and forgot what he promised. It always happens.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Matty

    They might not be writing what they should, but are the press feeling the heat a bit?

    Penny Wong comes out and says scepticism is ideologically based because she is now under attack. Complete twaddle but she’s a polly, and her job is now to contain the recognition of scepticism and sway people’s perception of it wherever she can. But I thought it conspicuous that Barrie Cassidy and friends began using the same line almost immediately. I’m sure she would have been very happy for them to adopt her narrative so readily, but I think it’s because they have a little something in common here. That is, they are also feeling it.

    In 2007 Penny had a dream port-folio, it was all plain-sailing. She got the mine, Garrett got the shaft – that was then, and when she looks around today she might well think – where did they come from?

    If they say Minchin is arguing from ideology, what is Plimer doing, and thousands of others? Wong and members of the gallery seem to be adopting similar lines of defense at the moment, and they are in the Penny camp because their arse is hanging out on this. Our “commentators” have a very high opinion of their own opinion and that is what makes it hard right now. Do they throw their arms up and say, yes, we have been derelict, or defend their ego’s. I’d say they are a lot more uncomfortable about scepticism than they let on, despite the practised laconic putdowns. Keep it up!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Charles Bourbaki

    I first noticed this late am on Friday 20th November. Apart from the blogs who else have reported this? Well I don’t know exactly but certainly the BBC, London Times, Daily Telegraph, Guardian, Daily Mail, the NYT, the WSJ, the Courier Mail, the Australian, the Age, the SMH and no doubt many other main stream newspapers throughout the free world. They may be pro or anti the hack or inside job but at least they have reported it. It is now at least 80 hours later and I drop over to the ABC every now and then and have a look at “Breaking News”. Nope, not a sausage. Un-be-liev-able.

    La crème de la crème of denialists.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Matt Buckels

    You’d have to be pretty happy with the ABC Lateline coverage… Bolta had a pretty clear run. If it frustrates you guys the Pitman got to give his point as well… well welcome to our world of every climate news article for 10 years having some crackpot crank get to have his say too.

    Hopefully it does defer our ETS, to buy some more time to get a decent one in place that actually pays attention to the science and does not just give freebie handouts all over the place.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    See Cognitive Dissonance for an independent and very apt description of what the AGW/Climate-Change crowd is experiencing right now and their likely response. As the article points out we have a choice of twisting the data to match the theory or twisting the theory to match the data. The ClimateGate incident demonstrates the choice the AGW/Climate-Change made long ago.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tony

    There must be more to come surely ? The emails published certainly don’t amount to 60+ mb. More juicy bits I suspect, and more damning information and corrupt practice. (All allegedly of course.)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Perhaps this story has traction! This today off the Wall Street Journal:

    (from a link on their front page.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLTopStories

    I can only hope…….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Joanne Nova: Post 21,

    think MattB has a valid question. When you say “I would like to state at this time that all bold and italics are mine.”

    You mean the emphasis was added by you, but the words belong to Judy right? Your comment could be misinterpreted to mean you added in words…

    Joanne, Thanks for the kinds words. My apologies MattB, it sunk in when Joanne explained. I thought you were refering to the “Title” to the article. My Bad!

    When ever I state this; the article is usually in one basic context of script. If you looked at it’s source, I had to do the paragraph breaks because it was a post in a blog as a “comment” not an article. She stated enough to give it a article look. Yes, I don’t like to change an “article” but it’s spelling or spacing is involved, I will correct it. In this case, I wanted to “emphasise” importance in Prof. Curry’s statements. She didn’t do this, I did. So out of respect for the author I state MY changes or additions to the article in fairness to the reader. I do need feedback though. I would like to know if a particular color used is hard to read or not liked at all. If I receive enough negative responses, I’ll quit doing the color or use it less. There are certain colors I use. It depends on my “mood” I guess on which ones I use. I “always” appreciate feedback to all of my articles I post. I’m still learning.

    I hope I cleared this up for all of you. You can respond to “any” article there at the bottom of the article. Also in the chatbox on the right, but you have to sign up to do that.

    Sorry again MattB for not being more clear!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Brendan H: Post 23,

    Well, if they don’t not think I can see how People might get confused. Personally, I don’t not think about Man, but I know that Powerful Money can sure change the eyes of Wo-man.

    Brendan, Well, you can try to “think” about how much a Trillion is but most Minds cannot fantom it. Yes, about Wo-man, carefully stated is yes I believe it attracts that gender but I think it goes “both” ways, Men will do the same even where there is not Love involved. That’s sad because eventually, because “loneliness” eventually takes over from within unless you are very good at ignoring it.

    I see there is an article on this site from a while back promising that climate scepticism was becoming hip. Is now the time? I desperately want to be hip, but my global warming friends might laugh at me. In typical postmodern fashion, I’m conflicted. Help!

    Brendan, for the “Realist” it’s always the time! I wouldn’t call them “Friends” if they laugh at you unless they are teasing you. Eventually that gets old and you will need to confront them on this with “your” views on AGW. Like Joanne states, Where’s the “Empirical Evidence” that CO2 is causing temperature increase? This is the Ultimate question! Ask it! Copy Joanne’s 1st & 2nd Skeptical Handbooks and study them. Do what I mentioned in my earlier post! It’s sounds like you are not convinced that CO2 isn’t the problem. Research, study, ask questions, read and read somemore. If you have Morals, respect, dignity and ambition, your “will” find your answer…come over to GWH.com and read somemore. Great sites ALWAYS help those who are socalled “on the fence” about this issue..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Tel: Post 24,

    Denny, those rules apply to all of politics (in the present day at any rate). “Left” or “Right” only a fool would see any difference. Can you show me a mainstream political party interested in honesty, transparency and liberty?

    Tel, thanks for your point of view and Yes, it does look that way. I do not think I’m a “fool” in believing the “Right” looks that way is because of the act of “Compromise” in function of Politics. Oh,yes, then you have the “moderates” [people who are on the fence] who will go both ways to try to satisfiy both sides…These people are called RINO’s [here in the U.S.] Republican In Name Only!

    Tel, I won’t get into “Politics” here because the last time I made a statement a few blogs ago, societal differences came into play and I affended someone here.. What I mentioned earlier is from a U.S. Conservative view.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    Tony:

    The rest is data and code. It is the code that is the really damning part.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brendan H

    Denny: “…yes I believe it attracts that gender but I think it goes “both” ways…”

    Just to be clear, I’m strictly a one-way man. The internet can cause all sorts of misunderstandings, as we have seen happen with these stolen/leaked/lost emails.

    “That’s sad because eventually, because “loneliness” eventually takes over from within unless you are very good at ignoring it.”

    Better to be miserable and wealthy rather than miserable and poor. My problem is that women with money always run a mile. I wonder why?

    “I wouldn’t call them “Friends” if they laugh at you unless they are teasing you.”

    That’s what I’m not sure of. They call it “hockey-sticking”, and it sure is painful. Perhaps I should complain, but then I’d be both poor and lonely.

    “This is the Ultimate question! Ask it!”

    Believe it! But after the last hockey-sticking I might keep quiet for a while. I must say, though, that your inspiring talk of morals, respect, dignity and ambition has given me a good deal of hope that, in time, I too, may change, as our young leader often says, or used to.

    “ALWAYS help those who are socalled “on the fence” about this issue..”

    Good advice, and thanks. Sitting on the fence can be mighty painful, especially after a thorough hockey-sticking.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Here’s an article that has come from the “Dispersed” Files from ClimateGate! A very interesting “General Comments” by an distinguished New Zealand Scientist back in 2000..

    http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1272.0


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Brendan H: Post 35,

    Good advice, and thanks. Sitting on the fence can be mighty painful, especially after a thorough hockey-sticking.

    Brendan, we were ALL there where you are now at one time on this Issue. Back in 88 when James Hansen started the “scare” tactics, I just thought he was some extremist! I ignored the whole issue BUT kept an ear out! I think Brendan, the OZone crisis back in the 90′s gave them momentum and they helped Hansen and the rest is History… As far as sitting on the Fence/Hockey Stick, yes I too believe it would be a little unconfortable..:)

    Brendan, we are here for you, and you are MOST Welcome!!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Denny – you needed Climategate to find out Vincent Gray’s skeptical opinions?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    MattB: Post 38,

    Denny – you needed Climategate to find out Vincent Gray’s skeptical opinions?

    Matt, no I’m well aware of Dr Grays views on this subject! I just wanted to point out that He was a Climate Consulant for the IPCC TAR 3rd Revision back in 2000. I wanted to “show” what He was thinking and responding to in this report…I thought you would have figured that out!! After 9 years, these issues have not changed at all…

    Here is His latest Debate with Trenberth earlier this year.

    http://fortcollinsteaparty.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/xchangegray_ftcollinsfeb08.pdf


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Dr A Burns

    Good article. I’ve noted how the press has seemed to have “overlooked” the biggest story of the decade. Spending trillions of taxpayer dollars on the basis of a scam should be worthy of more than a “feature” article in the Australian and nothing elsewhere.

    The net however is ablaze with the story. Google hits on “ClimateGate” in the past 3 days:
    59,000;
    69,000;
    147,000 today
    Perhaps this is a sign that “the press” is will go the way of the dinosaur ?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Dr A Burns: Post 40,

    Perhaps this is a sign that “the press” is will go the way of the dinosaur ?

    Dr. Burns, I would say that is a very good “opservation” because of the “Biased Media” today. People are flocking to the Internet to read and participate with all subjects of interest and receiving “both” sides of the issue..Literally participating in debate! A lot of them starting their own “Blogs”. Something you couldn’t do unless you were in a public forum and these were rare. Get-togethers with friends and family was the only other common way.

    I was at a Doctors Office yesterday and I saw the “Times” magazine on the table. Now, I haven’t looked nor read one in I would say 10 years. When I picked it up, I couldn’t believe how light it was. I looked at it and it was very thin. Maybe 40 some pages thick..I didn’t count but my point is “all” of the major magazines and news articles are down in subscriptions..”They are Hurting”!! I also contribute it to the majorities “Biased” standing on Issues..I know a little over a year ago when Obama was running of the White House, if you wanted to see anything on the “negative” side, you had to go to the Internet and it wasn’t hard to find..Sad but true..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brendan H

    Denny: “As far as sitting on the Fence/Hockey Stick, yes I too believe it would be a little unconfortable..:)”

    “Little” is an understatement. Fact is, I need some balm to heal the pain, and as luck would have it, CRU has provided just such a medicine:

    http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate

    I’m now seriously thinking about climbing off the fence and taking advantage* of the balm offered by people for whom I once had deep feelings of trust, and may well cultivate** again.

    In comparison, sceptic websites are offering a world of hurt. This is very distressing, although oddly enough, it’s nothing they haven’t said before. Still, I wonder whether any climate sceptics out there have any words of comfort for warmers at this time? Some of us sure could use them.

    “Brendan, we are here for you, and you are MOST Welcome!!!!”

    Well, that touches*** me, Denny. I think I’ll stay around for a while.

    * Given the potential for communication misunderstandings in this electronic medium, I wonder whether internet and email users should adopt a system of footnotes to clarify the meaning of possibly ambiguous words and phrases. For example, I use the phrase above, “taking advantage” in a strictly utilitarian sense, without any overtones of exploitation or illicit usage.

    ** I use the term “cultivate” in the cultural, non-scientific sense.

    *** When I say “touches”, my meaning is, of course, strictly metaphorical.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Brendan H: Post 42,

    “Little” is an understatement.

    LOL! Yes, I was just a little Humble there! :) Thanks for explaining “touches” at the bottom of your response. I know, if you imply the wrong thing, People judge very quickly unforunately. I figured that’s what you meant!

    Still, I wonder whether any climate sceptics out there have any words of comfort for warmers at this time?

    Brendan, I have seen some symphathy towards the Alarmists but mostly the “other side”.

    Well, that touches*** me, Denny. I think I’ll stay around for a while.

    Well Brendan, I say this because you “are” welcome and because you with curiosity came here one way or another to satisfy this curious nature within you..you saw something that wasn’t “right”! I too saw this and it didn’t take long to find out because of the Internet. I’ve commited to a Web Site as most People here know or are finding out. I take time towards “New Members”. Just check the “Chat Box” and you will see me stating “congrats to” someone who just signed up..You have to go to “show all Posts” to see. I think it’s respect towards a person and have you ever entered a room that you had to be in and knew no one?? It’s kinda lonely until someone breaks the ice..Of course, I don’t congrat them all but if I catch it, I do..But doing this helps. You can tell after their first posting..

    I’ve talked to Joanne in my personal email and sensed a good person..Some people have this gift. Most don’t. Mine is 99.9% effective..I try not to “prejudge” anyone. It’s just a sense, a feeling! It’s hard to describe.

    * Given the potential for communication misunderstandings in this electronic medium, I wonder whether internet and email users should adopt a system of footnotes to clarify the meaning of possibly ambiguous words and phrases. For example, I use the phrase above, “taking advantage” in a strictly utilitarian sense, without any overtones of exploitation or illicit usage.

    Brendan, you can do this regularly when you make a statement. You have to be organized and research the subject. I for one give a statement and when someone challenges it, THEN I find my info…I ALWAYS make sure I have the info before hitting the “Submit Comment”. If I don’t or can’t find it, I state such and apologize! The big problem is “time”. I think and I think others here agree, if we did research and post at the same time, we would get nothing done in Our Lives. Creating files in your Field of Interest always helps. I use Microsoft Word. I’m learning it all the time..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Interesting how the mainstream media has clammed up on this one. I have found I am using the idiot box less and less for news now, and this issue really personifies why.

    Yesterday was interesting. The TVNZ website had two articles on the emails on Tuesday, but then around 20 minutes later they could not be found. then there was an article about a massive iceberg 50KMs off the coast of Stuart Island – presumably “due to AGW”. Then someone jumped in a helicopter and flew over to find it wasn’t an iceberg, just an underwater reef which wasn’t going anywhere. The Dr who raised the alarm said something along the lines of “sorry ’bout that”.

    Why are these stunts always pulled on the outset of a major CC conference? Don’t reply, it’s a rhetorical question.

    I never bought into the AGW debate in the first place. And yes, I suffered from social leprosy on a couple of occasions as a result. It would take much more than a former us president to convince me. So now, I am watching the sparks fly with a lot of amusement.

    I am, however, concerned about the consequences of this with Joe Public, You know, the bloke down the street who saw an inconvenient truth, got scared for his kids and then saw journailsts, celebrities and politicians tell them repeatedly that AGW was fact and that there was no dispute within the scientific community. And to have mainstream media treat people with any hint of doubt about AGW to be castigated as crackpots.

    And now, he’s discovering the IPCC is a political Institution and the people conducting the dirty handed tricks aren’t the oil companies, no, they’re crackpot “scientists” who fudge and delete their data.

    So in the space of a year, Joe public has lost faith in their Super fund manager, their bankers and now the scientific community. I guess the next one is losing faith in who they elected – uh ohhh, now we’re getting into really political waters.

    I’ll shut up now.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I can see that you might be an expert at your field! I am launching a web page soon, and your details will be extremely useful for me.!!! Thank you for all your help and wishing you all the success inside your business.


    Report this

    00