JoNova

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


Handbooks

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



Archives

ClimateGate – the toxic bomb hidden in plain view

I woke up this morning to find the Queen telling me to care for the Climate, and the front page of The Australian declaring that the liberals faced oblivion if they did not pass this legislation.

Oblivion? Because the Liberals saved us from being defrauded?

It’s as if the editor of The Australian has not noticed their own articles about the climate science scandal known as ClimateGate.  There is no way this story is going to fade away. The fuse is ignited, and people everywhere are burning with anger and spreading the word. There is already polished, popular satirical songs  on You-Tube (see below) and t-shirts printed with “Hide the decline”.

I’ve put in this video here even though I’ve linked to it before, because this is so relevant to the question of voter polls. This mocking slam-dunk is just the beginning. With this kind of material doing the rounds, how can ClimateGate be ignored?


[Give the Minnesotans for Global Warming a donation to say thanks.]

And since the public will find out, and since the ETS will cost real citizens, real money, the only thing guaranteed here is that the public will grow to hate it. An advance version of that is burning through the inner ranks of the Liberal Party this weekend.

“In Victoria, senior party figures began to warn that well-heeled financial donors had been explicit in their anger and had slammed shut their cheque books.

“I’ve never seen this before,” one long-term conservative staffer said. “It’s like a people power movement. Malcolm saw off a spill move yesterday, but the real revolution is happening out in the electorate.” [The Australian]

Would anyone expect the public to vote the same way after they hear the news that the IPCC science is based on collusion, falsification of data and outright, undenied criminal behaviour?

There are not many facets of human personalities that are near universal across cultures, genders, and ages, but a sense of injustice is hard-wired. There will be no forgiveness for those who tricked them, and ignorance will be no excuse.

As the news spreads, the ETS will “Go Toxic”. Voters will not just abandon the politicians who sacrificed us to JP Morgan and co, they will set land-speed records moving in the other direction.

The fire is lit.

Sign Barnaby Joyce’s Petition.

Keep sending emails. They’re working.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
ClimateGate - the toxic bomb hidden in plain view, 10.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/2eyylk4

41 comments to ClimateGate – the toxic bomb hidden in plain view

  • #
    MadJak

    Jo,

    The Liberal situation is absolutely Unreal.

    They have stood up and been counted (and punished) for their doubts about Climate change for years. They are so close to being vindicated, it isn’t funny.

    And now they want to say it’s all too hard politically and roll over. It sort of seems like a slight cross between 1984 and the muppet show (maybe not, the muppet show had more style).

    Today I am going to chat about Peer reviews and the ramifications of the CRU hack on Science itself.

    In my humble opinion, what should come from all this is that the Elitist scientific view that data should only be made available with other scientists has got to be numbered. The perception that the masses simply aren’t smart enough to handle it properly is bogus in the extreme.

    With increased comms around the world, in my humble opinion, what should happen with regards to the publishing of scientific papers:

    1) All Data and tools that went behind the creation of the papers are made freely available publicly for critique
    2) People involved in the peer reviews are named in the following way:
    Who they were
    What their qualifications/experience is
    Whether they approved the papers final revision
    What areas, if any, they had raised concerns about that were not addressed in the final version
    All comments regarding peer reviews are to be published with the data and tools used for the research

    Now, some in the scientific community would criticise this and critique this suggestion and say that this would mean the authors would spend the rest of their lives defending their papers. Not necessarily. You could allways assign Junior people to counter any arguments or claims against the paper – for anything serious, well, then get the authors involved.

    If they are too busy to defend their papers, they can allways publish their findings in a blog instead.

    Of course, when the papers end up affecting the Public, then it is simply undemocratic to not allow a right of recourse and a voice for people who have questions.

    At the end of the day, the Climate change hoax hasn’t been a scientific debate for sometime. it has been in the realm of politics. The politics has taken a stand and a side because it’s a popular move, and now we are all going to pay for it.

    I only hope the hacker/insider who released this stuff is not put out to dry. I’d bet that if they’re an insider they would have had a really tough week.

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Jo,

    One more video I’ve had up on facebook for a few days. Very well done, I thought:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HXtE87R04w

    00

  • #
    Steve

    Love the shirt.

    Although, I’m sure though “Global Cooling” will be found to be “consistent” with AGW :)

    00

  • #
    Matty

    RE: Madjak #1 & #2

    I think that as members of the resistance, we have seen the exploits of internet based sceptic monitors. They are becoming well known names(McIntyre and many others) and are knocking down well built walls. This proves you right.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Matty

    Better news

    The Yahoo7 online poll running at 70% opposition to passing the bill, has been backed up by a Galaxy poll(Sunday Telegraph). 81% of coalition voters saying no, 50% of labour voters saying no. So the Queen can say whatever.

    00

  • #
    Klem

    I’ve heard many say that these emails have been taken out of context and only the climate scientits really understand what they mean. Well George Monbiot is a climate scientist and he knows exactly what they mean, and he’s really upset by what they mean. That’s the proof I was looking for. I may not have known much about him before, but now I realize that he believes in the science and he looks for truth. He realizes that this whole affair will do tremendous damage to climate science and science in general. It’s about time science had a good kick in the pants, and this might be it.

    00

  • #
    MrXYZ

    Note: The first video has interesting visuals, the second is a talking head.

    Based on Corbett report–very interesting visuals

    Message to the Environmental Movement – Climategate
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Hftsk4gWqI&feature=related

    Corbett report version
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEggt0ldQUI

    00

  • #

    The Queen has added her name to a long list of fraudsters who will lose their integrity completely for failing to protect the populace over this issue.

    00

  • #
    Dean Turner

    Klem, if only that were true! The media is an ass on this. They are refusing to expose this fraud. I wonder when they will finally start to acknowledge this sham.

    00

  • #
    Fiona

    Latest Galaxy Poll shows 80% of Australians don’t want the ETS rammed through senate.

    “Incredibly, nine out of 10 Coalition supporters – and three out of four Labor voters – say they don’t understand the ETS and want the Government to explain it better.

    The Galaxy poll, conducted exclusively for The Sunday Telegraph on Friday night, shows a huge 80 per cent of voters do not believe the Government has provided sufficient details about an ETS with only 26 per cent now supporting the Turnbull-Rudd push for the Senate to pass it into law immediately.

    Fewer than one in five Australians believe the Government has provided sufficient information about the ETS.”

    00

  • #
    Bruce

    Urgent Action Required

    The latest strategy is for the ETS bill to be put to the senate vote on Monday. There are some key Turnbull supporter senators, who will be under pressure to support the ETS.

    Hence I am suggesting that as many people as possible send emails to the following senators – Michael Ronaldson, George Brandis, Sue Boyce, Judy Troeth, Maris Payne, and Helen Kroger.

    Email addresses are: senator.ronaldson@aph.gov.au,senator.brandis@aph.gov.au,senator.sue.boyce@aph.gov.au,senator.troeth@aph.gov.au,senator.payne@aph.gov.au,senator.kroger@aph.gov.au

    Suggest something along these lines – I have modified Jo’s original suggested email.

    Dear Senator XXXX,

    You must have heard of the “Climategate” emails. These show irrefutably that climate science has been corrupted. It’s clear that senior scientists at the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit, have been hiding data, fudging the results, deleting files and operating in collusion to promote man made climate change, and suppress opposing views.

    This has resulted in billions of dollars being spent, based on the fraudulent claims of the IPCC.

    Perhaps you should ask one of your research assistants to do a google search on climategate, and see for yourself.

    Please do this before voting on the ETS this Monday.

    Any senator who passes the ETS legislation under the current circumstances, will be seen as negligent, abandoning the interests of their constituents, and ignoring the core principles of the Liberal Party.

    Sincerely,

    XXXX

    00

  • #
    BJM

    I woke up this morning to find the Queen telling me to care for the Climate

    I think people will find, that the Queen was reading a prepared speech authored by Prime Minister Brown. I believe the Monarchy are not permitted to make official political comments or statements. I stand corrected if I am wrong.

    00

  • #
    Rob Donnelly

    The you tube hit “Hide the Decline” should also be accompanied by Glenn Becks Fox News Report of the scandalous email correspondence between leading climate scientists.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBH7FrJVAe4

    The creditability of the IPPC has taken a serious nose dive by their attempt to ‘hide the decline’ by manipulating data and the peer review process to weed out scientists who oppose their catastrophic predications of global melt down.

    Models in Science change with evidence. Glenn Beck goes straight for the jugular. Some climate scientists have chosen to deliberately hide evidence, manipulate data and suppress view points that don’t support their climate model.

    Too bad many politicians aren’t aware of this – they want to implement an ETS tax based on old science data and a model that doesn’t work.

    It takes a long time for the Titanic to turn. Let’s just hope this one just sinks or should I say stinks!

    00

  • #
    Bruce

    Re Post #12

    For some reason, some of the email address I posted have fallen off the edge of the page. Have reproduced them all again here:

    senator.ronaldson@aph.gov.au, senator.brandis@aph.gov.au,
    senator.sue.boyce@aph.gov.au, senator.troeth@aph.gov.au,
    senator.payne@aph.gov.au, senator.kroger@aph.gov.au

    It also appears that the resignation of senior liberal politicians from their portfolios, in Australian Parliament, due to their opposition to passing the ETS is sending vibrations around the globe.

    Imagine the effect if the ETS is rejected.

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    Thanks for the heads-up, Bruce! This is what I’ve just sent:

    (Subject: 60 (Sixty!) percent of Australians oppose the ETS!)

    “Dear Senators, (Dear staffers – please make sure your bosses actually see this! From a fellow staffer … who knows how it works)

    Sydney Morning Herald, 28 November:

    “A whopping 60 per cent of Australians are against Kevin Rudd rushing the Emissions Trading Scheme through parliament.
    Despite Mr Turnbull insisting the ETS must be passed now – ahead of the UN’s Copenhagen summit – the poll overwhelmingly backs his opponents – with 81 per cent of Coalition supporters wanting the vote delayed.

    Incredibly, nine out of 10 Coalition supporters – and three out of four Labor voters – say they don’t understand the ETS and want the Government to explain it better.

    The Galaxy poll, conducted exclusively for The Sunday Telegraph on Friday night, shows a huge 80 per cent of voters do not believe the Government has provided sufficient details about an ETS with only 26 per cent now supporting the Turnbull-Rudd push for the Senate to pass it into law immediately.

    Fewer than one in five Australians believe the Government has provided sufficient information about the ETS.”

    As a Liberal Party member, volunteer and State MLA Research Officer, I urge you in the strongest possible terms to vote agains the ETS/CPRS in the Senate next week. It is not the dissenters and Climate Sceptics in the Liberal Party who are “tearing the party apart” – it is Malcolm Turnbull and his supporters.

    It is time to listen to the Party grassroots; time to put your ear to the ground and understand that the tide of public opinion is turning and turning faster than you think. The truth about Climate Change is leaking out. The Liberal Party has a small window of opportunity to shift their stance on this and come out as the Party that stands for Truth and REAL Science; the Party that listens to its constituents, members and voters, the Party that differentiates itself from the Socialist Labor Party and defends common sense, prosperity and sound environmental policies. There are plenty of environmental issues that need dealing with. Fighting “man-made climate change” is emphatically not one of them.

    The leaked emails from CRU East Anglia should have been a beacon to all of you. You all have researchers working for you. Get them researching! I have been researching Global Warming personally for 2 1/2 years. Believe me – there is NO empirical evidence for Anthropogenic Global Warming! Evidence for climate change is not evidence for what caused it.

    Kevin Rudd desperately wants Liberal Party “fingerprints” all over his disastrous ETS, so that when it all crumbles and people are baying for political blood, he can point fingers and say: “They were in on it too!”

    Wake up! You’ve been had! It’s not too late to change your mind and inform yourselves, but the window of opportunity is closing fast.”

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Here’s the latest from Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. My Top 10 Annoyances In The Climate Change Debate

    At: http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1310.last

    00

  • #
    ROM

    RUDD. MADOFF. LAY and Associates

    Financiers and Traders in Hot Air Emissions

    Your Future is Safe in Our Hands

    00

  • #
    Mike W

    Jo, I hope you won’t mind me re-posting these comments from Dr Kurt M Harris’ PaNu blog.

    Original post here: http://www.paleonu.com/panu-weblog/2009/11/27/health-and-evolutionary-reasoning-the-panu-method.html?lastPage=true&postSubmitted=true

    Q & A with Dr Harris below.

    “The fact that other bloggers, writers , doctors and scientists independently arrive at the same list, some without any appeal to evolutionary reasoning, only makes me more confident that these are the important ones. Any real scientific principle should be independently discoverable.”

    I’ve noticed, what seems to me to be a striking congruence of paleolithic nutrition and Libertarianism in the blogosphere; yourself, Keith Norris and Richard Nikoley spring to mind immediately. The perversion of the scientific method and false claims of consensus which led to widespread acceptance of the lipid hypothesis, the narrative of that story, seems to me at least, to be very similar to what has taken place in the scientific community with regard to AGW.

    Kurt, I have a great deal of respect for the scientific, political and economic analysis you demonstrate in your blog. I appreciate that the areas of inquiry most relevant to AGW may be outside your training. Given the importance the theory is taking on right across science, politics and industry I am sure you would have considered and assessed it in some detail. I would value your insight. Can I draw you out to comment on the credibility of AGW? If not publicly, then privately.

    KGH:

    The Climate Change Scam won’t kill as many people, but certainly serves as My Fair Lady to the Pygmalion of the Lipid Hypothesis.

    AGW and the potential for AGW is real but trivial in the context of massive geophysical cycles that are the norm for the planet.

    Even if AGW were much larger in effect, there is essentially no way that it can be significantly averted by climate treaties or taxes without further destruction of the world economy and starvation.

    If nothing whatever is done to avert any temperature increase, the problem will solve itself in 50 years or so when the remaining recoverable oil becomes too expensive and precious to use as transportation fuel. No government policy can improve the situation, it can only interfere with the market signals needed to find market solutions to the problem -including the problem of energy sources.

    Recent warming, which essentially stopped in 2000, may have been AGW or solar related. Since 2000 there has been cooling.

    The recent email scandal demonstrates what I have thought for the past 6 years I have been reading about this- that there is actually a criminal conspiracy to prove the government needs to expand its power and “scientists” are literally creating data out of thin air and blackballing climate skeptics from publication.

    Climate Change is a purely political movement whose aims are central control, power and academic rent-seeking. The fact that the average person is a scientifically illiterate lover of the fascist state (even the leftists are taught to love the fictions of both god and country from birth) makes their job easy.

    As a sponsor of Cato, I have all Patrick Michaels books. Highly recommended.

    Other thoughts:

    Except for nuclear power, alternative energy as a significant replacement for fossil fuels is an impossible fantasy.

    The end of cheap oil is upon us and the world (and especially US) economy will be smaller in real terms in 10 years than it is today. Real home values will never exceed the values of 2006. Unemployment will stay high for many years.

    The US government is effectively bankrupt and any hope for rapid economic recovery has been sacrificed so that Goldman Sachs and the other financial oligarchs that actually own the government can profit. We are a nation of debt peons.

    A dollar bill in your pocket will be worth perhaps 50 cents or less in 5 years. Massive inflation in the pipeline. Buy Gold and at some point, short US treasuries. See http://www.itulip.com for more details

    Being a doomer is fun!

    Unfortunately, I am not joking about any of this.

    00

  • #
    Mike W

    Apologies, Kurt G Harris.

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Headline News! ClimateGate: U of East Anglia, U-Turn in Climate Change Row
    http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1318.last

    The Latest on an article about George Monbiot! http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1317.last

    Prof. Vincent Gray speaks His latest: Vincent Gray on ClimateGate:’There was Proof of Fraud All Along’
    http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1313.last

    I love the Video being shown on this posting…Tommy James and The Shondells from back in the Late 60′s..Wow, I’m showing my age…the words to it are great!! :)

    00

  • #

    WRT MadJac’s comments at the start, which I repeat:

    With increased comms around the world, in my humble opinion, what should happen with regards to the publishing of scientific papers:
    1) All Data and tools that went behind the creation of the papers are made freely available publicly for critique
    2) People involved in the peer reviews are named in the following way:
    Who they were
    What their qualifications/experience is
    Whether they approved the papers final revision
    What areas, if any, they had raised concerns about that were not addressed in the final version
    All comments regarding peer reviews are to be published with the data and tools used for the research

    I’ve published a few scientific papers (not on Climate change – other fields) over the years, and I have a half-dozen or so patents. Let me tell you how its done in some other fields:

    - when you publish a paper, you have to have full disclosure. That means you say what you set out to show, you say how you did it, and you show your results, and you draw your conclusions. If you have methods, techniques or algorithms, you have to show them or reference them.

    - when you write a patent, you have to have full disclosure of your invention, to allow it to be re-created by one “skilled in the art”. Full disclosure is the price you pay for being granted a legal monopoly. The disclosures of methods and techniques is long, tedious, and difficult. Algorithms and the like need to be explained in words, with diagrams, flowcharts, and other techniques.

    This level of disclosure keeps everyone honest. In the case of publishing papers, especially in computer science, it is expected that readers can ask for more information – if pieces of source code were not published as part of the paper.

    When it comes to peer review – the paper’s authors NORMALLY don’t know who the peer reviewers are. The paper goes out for review, comments come back with no name on, and the author considers them. Only when the publisher is satisfied that the author has addressed concerns raised by the reviewer(s) does the paper get published (review of the final published version may or may not happen, this being at the discretion of the publisher).

    So, it seems to me that in a number of other fields, the level of disclosure is nearly (but not quite) what you seek. It should not take a great deal to disclose more. In my own case, I would have given my eye teeth to know who my reviewers were – because I wanted to get them on the phone, discuss their review comments – for clarification and to improve further what I published. I see no problem at all in the authors, and readers, knowing who the reviewers were.

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    (Brian in anger mode)

    The people involved in the email discussions at Hadley committed outright fraud, how much brains does it take to figure that out, I’ve looked over their “contributions” and since 1997 NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THESE PEOPLE PRODUCED A DAMNED LEGITIMATE THING the junk was transparently bogus since it appeared in print

    NOT ONLY DO THEY ADMIT AS MUCH TO THEMSELVES THEY LAUGH AT THEIR VICTIMS

    and this amounts to “moral turpitude” in legal jargon

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Hi Asheligh,

    Thanks for the clarifications there. It is a very interesting area – particularly as political policies have and are being forged on the “science” in this matter.

    Of course, this system also leads to the corruption seen at east anglia – who decides who the peer reviewers are? Because at the end of the day they could be considered the people who are inevitably deciding on it’s veracity purely with their selection of the reviewers.

    I would be suprised if a statistician was involved in reviewing the models, for instance.

    One other question here, just for my own understanding. if a published paper such as the ones eminating for the said individuals in the CRU scandal are debunked, what happens to all the other papers that made references the debunked paper? Are they automatically debunked and have to be peer reviewed or not?

    Personally, I don’t see why peer reviewers should remain anonymous after publication. I can quess that the reasons are to make sure the peer reviewers can completely critique the paper without any sense of recrimination, however, this can equally result in the opposite, which appears to be the case.

    00

  • #

    Here’s another T shirt slogan from my wife:

    sCRUed
    science

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Mike,

    Sign me up for 5…

    Please….

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    In this article (“pinched” by Denny and referred to above in his post #20), we see the claim that the CRU crew will release the data (all that they haven’t deleted, that is!)

    I wonder how much wind that will take out of the Climategate sails? A fair bit, I imagine, from the point of view of the main stream media and the general public… unfortunately.

    00

  • #

    MadJac:

    Papers have been published (after review) since science became a science (if you will forgive me the expression). And when they later turn out to have proposed, or shown, or whatever something that later turns out to be invalid – THERE IS NO METHOD of flowing the conclusions on to everything that was derived from it.

    In other words, if a paper is found to be bunkum, and its referenced or depended on by a bunch of other papers, then it’s up to future readers and researchers to seek out all the tangled threads to then figure out whats bumkum and whats not.

    There is no automatic system of flagging scientific papers as “since disproved”. Or certainly none that I know of.

    This applies in all scientific fields, including medicine. Keeping abreast of the literature and repeating experimental results is difficult, time consuming, and expensive. There’s no central clearing house, and no scientific “world government” to arbitrate the currently known truth.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Here is a great example of the immoral, unethical and even possibly illegal behaviour that seems to be ingrained at the UEA.
    In 1999 the UK Govt. put out a tender to establish a new Climate Research Centre accompanied with a 10 million GBP grant.
    A number of universities scrambled to put in a bid. So now the email….no 0939437868

    From: Wolfgang Cramer xxxxxx
    To: Mike Hulme xxxxxxxx
    Subject: Re: apologies
    Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 22:57:48 +0200
    Reply-to: Wolfgang Cramer xxxxxxxxx

    Dear Mike,

    I can understand you very well. I would have been more nervous about
    this, hadn’t the preparations AND registrations been going as well as
    they have done: just now, I feel pretty comfortable about the meeting.
    Sure, it’s a pity not having you around, but I guess you are taking
    the appropriate decision under your particular circumstances.

    Perhaps I shouldn’t be doing this, but let me add a VERY CONFIDENTIAL
    piece of information for you. It won’t make your life less stressful
    during the next few days, and I really MUST ask you to keep this
    confidential at your end (since I am effectively breaking a
    confidentiality here, and I wouldn’t want Edinburgh to know that), but
    I received the following e-mail on October 6:

    Dear Dr Cramer,

    I am contacting you on behalf of Prof Paul Jarvis to check whether you
    are willing to have your name mentioned in association with a project
    he is hoping to undertake. The project is part of a much larger package
    of projects which forms the nucleus of a bid being made by the
    University of Edinburgh and other partners to host a new Climate Change
    Centre, to be funded by the UK Research Councils at 10 million GBP over
    5 years (for further details of this opportunity see:
    http://www.nerc.ac.uk/press/aooclim.html). I work in a small unit of
    the University of Edinburgh that has responsibility for co-ordinating
    multi-disciplinary environmental research bids. Currently we are
    preparing the Outline Bid (deadline 15 October), so nothing should be
    regarded as firm, and details will be open to modification in the Full
    Bid, which we will prepare if the Outline Bid is successful.

    Below I reproduce the text we are proposing to include in the Outline
    Bid. Please confirm whether or not you are willing to have your name
    included.

    Please treat this email as confidential.

    Best regards,

    Simon Allen.

    Needles to say the UEA won the bid. The centre is called Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.

    I wonder what the University of Edinburgh would make of this?

    00

  • #

    I’d like to make a point about the scientific method.

    In general it works something like this:

    1. Observe.
    2. Based on observation, form a hypothesis.
    3. Test the hypothesis.
    4. If found wanting, ditch hypothesis and form another. Wash rince & repeat as needed.
    5. If hypothesis seems good, and supported by some level of evidence (thats the observation from step 1) then call it a Theory. Publish it.

    Now the point here is that a theory is just a theory. Unless you live in the land of maths, a theory remains a theory pretty much forever (for example, the Theory of Relativity). It remains a theory because PROVING a theory is damn hard work. In fact, impossible. (Example – even things we thing of as facts are only theorys. Its a theory that the sun will rise tomorrow. When it does, the theory is not proven. If the sun exploded tomorrow and so did not rise, the theory would be disproven.) Notice that probability does not enter into this definition.

    Disproving a theory, on the other hand, is quite easy. Just find some evidence that does not agree with the theory, and its dust.

    Searching for evidence to support the theory is in general an interesting but largely useless exercise. If there was enough evidence to form the theory in the first place, then searching for more is a waste of everybodys time. Searching for evidence to destroy a theory is a far better use of time – because if a theory can be junked, it can be replaced by a better one.

    Does all that sound rather negative? It should, because science in that sense is a bit like evolution. We latch onto an idea until its found wanting, then we latch onto a better one. Old theories become extinct because they no longer suit their environment (the facts don’t fit any more).

    Now – it seems to me that the AGW proponents have committed a simple scientific sin. They have gone searching for confirmation of their theory, instead of searching for evidence that the theory is broken. This is an easy mistake to make, but to then silence those who DO find evidence that the theory holds no water just compounds the sin.

    This is the real shame of all this mess. Science has been dealt a terrible blow by a bunch of fruadsters, and in time the bad name given to science will set ALL of civilisation back decades. Nobody will trust science for a long, long time once the dust settles on this mess.

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    A bit off-topic in this thread, I’m afraid. But here’s something on the connection between AGW and big bucks.

    00

  • #
    Will

    THIS IS A CALL TO ACTION
    We have been given a powerful tool in the form of GlimateGate.
    It now has a name and has the potential to get a life of its own.
    So if the mainsstream media is not going to report on this then let us use the social Facebook and emails to spread the news.
    Send the following two YouTube videos to two people that you know and ask them to send it onto at least 2 others.

    “Summary of ClimateGate”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu_ok37HDuE
    And “Hide the decline”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk

    If you have a Facebook page post the two links.

    Will

    00

  • #
    Grant

    In my view the revelations from CRU are not merely ClimateGate. They amount to a major scientific scandal. ClimateGate is too narrow a focus, and makes skeptics look like they are not in touch with the real issues. As it turns out the “believer/deniers” have so totally lost their objectivity, they have been prepared to distort, obfuscate and lie in order to satisfy their desired ends.

    Let’s rise above the murk.

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Steve Schapel: Post 27,

    In this article (”pinched” by Denny and referred to above in his post #20), we see the claim that the CRU crew will release the data (all that they haven’t deleted, that is!)

    Steve, great minds think alike!! I thought the same thing while reading the article…The CRU states these remarks but you are listening to an organization that has allowed this fiasco to go on…If you read there “about CRU” at their Home Page this is what it states:

    The Climatic Research Unit is widely recognised as one of the world’s leading institutions concerned with the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change.

    Consisting of a staff of around thirty research scientists and students, the Unit has developed a number of the data sets widely used in climate research, including the global temperature record used to monitor the state of the climate system, as well as statistical software packages and climate models.

    The aim of the Climatic Research Unit is to improve scientific understanding in three areas:

    past climate history and its impact on humanity;

    the course and causes of climate change during the present century;
    prospects for the future.

    The Unit undertakes both pure and applied research, sponsored almost entirely by external contracts and grant from academic funding councils, government departments, intergovernmental agencies, charitable foundations, non-governmental organisations, commerce and industry.

    Alongside its research activities, the Unit has an educational role through its contribution to formal teaching with the School of Environmental Sciences (most notably, the MSc in Climate Change) and various forms of in-service training including postgraduate education. It is regarded as an authoritative source of information on both the science and policy aspects of climate change by the media and maintains a high public profile.

    The staff of the Unit have an enviable publication record, contributing to both peer-review and popular journals as well as editing various newsletters and bulletins.

    The Climatic Research Unit is part of the School of Environmental Sciences with close links to other research groups within the department such as the Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment. The Unit undertakes collaborative research with institutes throughout the world on a diverse range of topics and is coordinating or contributing to a number of networking activities.

    I’ll let you people make the comments first!!! It’s sad to read this and then see what has happened and how CRU is involved…The only thing I give CRU credit is they recognized they had a problem and didn’t lie about being hacked once it took off on the Internet. I really didn’t think they would do this so fast!

    00

  • #
    Denny

    This applies in all scientific fields, including medicine. Keeping abreast of the literature and repeating experimental results is difficult, time consuming, and expensive. There’s no central clearing house, and no scientific “world government” to arbitrate the currently known truth.

    Ashleigh, “Thank you” for input and so very true. I’ve heard a lot of comments from Scientist’s of different fields and they are amazed by what they see..I wish you luck telling “The Hockey Stick Team” about how peer review works…This is the code name given by Steve McIntyre and crew towards the Scientist’s that work on producing the Hockey Stick Graph…

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Ashleigh is exactly right about the scientific method. When a theory becomes unambiguously true it elevates to the status of a Law, for example, the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. Interestingly enough, for an AGW believer to support their science, the first thing they do is throw away this first principles, physical Law.

    George

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Hi All,

    First of all thank you to everyone with their explanations of the peer review process. It does sound like an outdated system which whilst it is useful from a scientific perspective, is very easily corruptable by people who believe the end justifies the means.

    I think that just like many other unrelated institutions have found over the last couple of decades, it is obviously time for the peer review process to become transparent and visible – particularly if the science has major implications for society.

    I share the concern about how this reflects on science in general. It is a concern I had many years ago. Of course, any blame for this must rest on the shoulders of the “Hockey stick team” and every person who actively supported them.

    So how hard would it be to get a list of all the papers which referenced the hockey stick teams work? Shouldn’t this list be up on the net somewhere? I’m not saying everything related to their fraud is wrong, but surely the Public needs to know what papers have been contaminated by this fraud and the Authors of the related papers.

    This is so that when advocates of AGW say something along the lines like “but there is a lot of other research confirming AGW”, we can first ask for their references and then cross check them?

    It was interesting yesterday to see the CRU admit they disposed of the original data when they moved buildings – a different story to the “we ran out of backup tape” argument.

    One final thing here – is anybody running up the fortran Code. Let’s find the exact statementa and syntax of “hiding the decline” just to seal things up nice and tight.

    From there, it seems to me to be a simple matter of pulling it all together and we would have then done the Mainstream medias job for them.

    00

  • #
    CyberForester

    There are some very apt descriptions coming through here. I like “contamination”.

    This saga is going to contaminate the public perception of science. And it plays into the hands of the post-modernist’s mindset that “there are no absolutes”. I suspect there has been something of this kind of thinking at work amongst the CRU crew. If every law becomes contestable e.g. force=mass*acceleration, work=force*distance then mankind is on a path to oblivion.

    It seems from my questioning of NIWA (New Zealand’s CRU crew) that a small elite has written some rules for “mashing up” weather observations and turning them into a time series. From what I have seen, there does not appear to have been any correspondence with a statistician (or multiple statisticians) to ask if the concept is reasonable. It looks to me like the rules have been written within a closed system. (Now we start to consider entropy… or is that not an “absolute” any more?)

    Like I said above, the context of climate science kind of deflects attention from the real travesty this is for science and mankind.

    00

  • #
    Btok

    Attention, American and Canadian citizens we are so close to losing our Sovereignty and our Freedom, is barely hanging by a thread! Make your voice and your rights known, as you are the boss not the politicans you voted into power!
    Time is getting short and it is coming down to the fact, that soon ( December 7 to December 18 ) I will have to pray to the good Lord to maintain our freedoms and that God will not allow our leaders to sign the Copenhagen Treaty, which will take away our liberties, let go and let God, this being a challenge to our Lord and Saviour? However, while there is still time to prevent the loss of a lifetime, perhaps loss of life it’s self – I will do what I am able to fight for our freedoms! The whole Climate Change agenda is a proven fraud and racketeering, but the United Nations and Globalist governments don’t care as that is just the excuse instrument they have used to ensnare us, they are going to try to push it through anyway! Has everybody out there become a tree hugger? The tree will be standing 100 years from now, but will you be looking at the tree, from inside the fence of a Concentration Camp? Anyone out there want to fight to maintain their freedom anymore? Please do all you can to preserve freedom in North America!

    Check out what Government is doing behind your back at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU

    Canadians: To request that PM Harper doesn’t sign the Copenhagen Treaty, thereby causing
    Canadians to lose their Sovereignty and Freedom, email the PM at: pm@pm.gc.ca

    Any lawyers want to help out by filing this Copenhagen Treaty, be classified as an illegal Treaty, in order to, help save Freedom in North America? ( Unlimited Promotion Opportunity Here For a Law firm to Gain a favorable high profile credibility! )

    Protest the inaccuracy and Fraud of Climate change measurements that are going to be used in the Copenhagen Treaty: http://www.gopetition.com/online/32485.html

    00

  • #

    I am not a believer in your Gods, If they were so great they would never have created the Human Species in the first place nor allow the stupidity of some of their creations.. Furthermore The Human Species is so far up itself that it regards itself to be far superior to any other! (Tirade :-) ) We as a species have to realize first and foremost that we are little more than Intelligent Apes behaving like Children with a Lolly Jar full of the most spectacular Sweets. STOP!
    We have to really look at ourselves, our place in the Universe and Understand that we do not require Gods any longer and take up that status and Rule as benevolent beings, beings that are able to take responsibility for our actions and in-actions. The greatest tool is at our finger tips, use it discuss the woes of the Planet and then let us do something positive about it.
    There are many things to understand and our brains are not able to cope with it all. Understand this; We are the only species on this little Blue Orb that are really aware of time and what we are doing. The remainder exist to do what they evolved to do and destroying our host, like a Virus, is not one of them.

    Global Warming is a Fact of Life. Climate change, Pollution etc are natural ocurences.. Nature has on many occasions Polluted the atmosphere to the demise of many species The Dinosaurs being one. It maters not whether it is by Volcanic Action or an Asteroid/Earth Collision—-Perhaps an Ice Age. Anything can be classified as Pollution when it becomes an imbalance whithin an environment.. At this point in time this Plant is badly polluted with one specific species which is not unlike a Virus in its actions.

    Just how much of the Global Warming is Natural or Man Made??? Can that be accurately quantified?? Regardless we the HUMAN SPECIES are responsible for at least some of these problems.

    There is no real cure for this Pollution and Global Warming problem: Reason?; We are not capable as a Species of Global cooperation, which this problem requires to at least do something about it. Copenhagen??? A useless attempt at a massive TAX Grab that future generations will RUE the day of. If we were to try to reverse this situation it would be impossible for us as nature has and always will control to the greater part, We can if we were to stop DOING will only halt our part but by the time it goes into effect nature will have just about caught up anyway. Stat’s would have it that by the year 2050 the Global Population will have Doubled at least re-doubeling our demand for all Resources which in turn will up our pollution.
    China and India says they will SLOW their pollution…. To what point? The Danes have implemented supposed cures which they now admit do not work?
    Where do we go now???

    There is only one Cure and we do not want to go there

    “All is as it should be in the Universe”

    00