History will record December 1, 2009 as the day of the first major political damage to the momentum of the Global Warming Scam.
For the first time anywhere in a major western democracy, a mainstream party is ready to face an election on “climate change” and face the bullies. The Australian Liberal Party have elected a new leader, held a secret ballot and voted 55 : 29 to defer the Emissions Trading Legislation.
Abbott said he was “not afraid to fight an election on climate change policy. And I am not frightened of an election on this issue.”
This will reverberate around the world in the lead up to Copenhagen.
The finale of one of the hottest weeks in Australian politics came down to a nail-biting 42:41 finish, but the earlier three-way split had Abbott a clear winner, and the secret ballot leaves no doubt the party doesn’t want to rush into this massive emissions trading legislation. The recent galaxy poll showed 80% of coalition voters don’t want it either.
Thanks to the ClimateGate instigator, who-ever you are. The Australian people owe you a fortune. Somehow the God of Reason has smiled upon us and our democratically elected leaders are hesitating to give away $7 billion dollars of voter’s money annually (and ad infinitum) to foreign forces in the hope of changing the weather.
The fog of the scare campaign has reached a peak and is now clearly lifting, but there is much to do. Abbott after all, supported the emissions trading scheme only a few months ago (though for political reasons rather than scientific or emotional ones).
This is a victory for grassroots action and democracy. For those who say the Liberal Party should have been allowed a vote of conscience in the Senate: One, the Labor Party weren’t (and there are skeptics in there who are relieved today); and two, who are we kidding, climate change is not a religion, is it? Hard science should never be decided by the heart. Why would anyone bother launching a weather satellite if a passionate belief could affect the atmosphere?
Senator Fielding is pushing for a Royal Commission. Let’s do the sums. Over the next decade with an emissions trading scheme Australians would pay $70,000 million dollars to foreign interests, with no benchmarks to estimate whether we have achieved anything except a symbolic victory. Cost of a Royal Commission: $100 million, or 0.001% of that outlay just to make sure. To twist some cliche’s:
Why play games with our childrens future? Have a Royal Commission.
Take precautions! Spend 0.001% just to check the facts.
If Rudd passionately believes the science is settled and the world is warming due to human activity, he will leap at the chance to prove it, right?
The press of course, almost to a person, don’t get it. Peter Hartcher in the Sydney Morning Herald: “Tony Abbott will offer himself as a political opportunist, a man who has switched his position to profit from a surging wave of opposition to Turnbull’s position on climate change.” [SMH]
The press just can’t see the wave of common sense coming (at long last) as politicians wake up to the global fraud.
It never occurs to those driven by ideology and not facts that there is any chance that an international committee could have been corrupted, or that human socio-political processes could be distorted, or that scientists could have been human. The press just can’t see the wave of common sense coming (at long last) as politicians wake up to the global fraud.
All credit to the dedicated hard work of men like Denis Jensen (our only science related PhD in Parliament) who’s been pointing out the illogical, unbacked nature of this for about two years to his own party. Senator Minchin’s role has been crucial (the Minchinites won!). Cory Bernardi has been outspoken. Steve Fielding’s background in Engineering has shone through, and he singlehandedly has achieved what no one else around the world has — being able to ask and demand and answer to “Where’s the evidence”.
VERY LATE NOTE: I should also have thanked Kevin Andrews for being brave enough to stand against Turnbull. His role was important in signalling to the world (and the Liberal Party) that there was a major disagreement behind the scenes.
Thanks to Andrew Bolt.
This is democracy in action.
This is what the start of the road to victory would look like.
* Having said that, there is still the faint possibility that some Liberal Senators could cross the floor. It would be an unprecedented political action, but given what has happened so far this week, not out of the question. Keep those emails coming…
Click on their names for emails. The full list of senators is here:
Michael Ronaldson [email protected], Senator George Brandis [email protected], Senator Sue Boyce [email protected], Senator Judy Troeth [email protected], Senator Maris Payne [email protected], Senator Kroger [email protected].
Click on that picture if you want to see it larger.
NO!!! CAN’T BE!!
Rationality in a political process?????
10
I can just picture Combet’s face, ditto Wong, Gillard. Now Rudd has a decision. For the first time in this term there will be people really going after him – Abbott landed good punches within minutes of emerging, he is wasting no time, how quickly things change. That glass jaw is in for a workout.
Nice shot of the M1A2. It’s unlikely the Greens have anything to kill it with. 63 tonnes of trouble.
10
Prior to the 1st October I was a AWG true believer. I read a WABN back page article by Joe Poprzeczny and couldn’t believe there was any doubt. Since I started researching this I can’t believe others are not able to see the fraud. This to me is the issue in front of us. The slow decades of brain washing is so complete that i spent weeks of evening research to remove doubt of the fraud. How then do you rip the veil off peoples eyes?
Thanks for your tireless effort Jo. Phil Curtis
10
I was so relieved when Tony Abbot was announced. I had remembered his earlier comments about climate change science, highlighting it’s uncertainties. His current position is the best we will see at this point. He is keeping a foot in the door so to speak, on an ETS. Hopefully in time the very idea of “tackling” climate change will be realised to be folly.
10
Phil, you remember what it was like, ignorance is bliss they say. A couple of years ago when Al Gore’s movie was doing the rounds, I would have called myself a believer then. My Dad commented to me and said that is was “The greatest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind”. I told him [then] that I wasn’t so sure that it was a fraud and that the science looked pretty solid. About 10 months ago I decided to start looking online, a bit deeper into the issue. Suffice to say team AGW is all hot air. No empirical evidence really does matter.
10
Welcome to the Matrix Phil.
I was like most others and also believed in what I was being told: “The world is getting hotter and we’re responsible”. Then a comment from my father two years ago about a man at his work who said that manmade global warming is “bullshit”.
That set me on the the quest for information and evidence. Like you, I couldn’t believe how the pro-AGW evidence was like a tower of playing cards, seemed impressive but was very weak upon closer scrutiny. Yet on the other side, the evidence was overwhelming and undeniable. Since then, I have put the information out there, planting seeds in the minds of those around me to have a look for themselves. Challenge pro-AGW people to provide just one single piece of scientific evidence showing how our meagre CO2 contribution is pushing global temperatures to disasterous levels. They can’t because it doesn’t exist.
Welcome aboard mate.
10
Don’t underestimate the task at hand people.
I remember seeing an article on why people take up jouralism. The most common response was because “they wanted to change the world”. Couple that with the very true wise statement “You can’t reason people out of what they have not been resoned into in the first place” and you can begin to understand the task at hand.
10
It’s my fervent hope that you Australians can pull this off. At least the rest of us will still have somewhere to run to, if you’ll have us. We can all celebrate with a pint and a vegemite sandwich. Good luck!
10
From Norway.
Congratulations to us all, but the fight is not over. The Norw. broadcasting stately owned NRK is sending BBC programs that still is telling the lies. We must work on.
Kind regards
Tom Wulff
Member of http://www.klimarealistene.com
10
As a AGW sceptic for more than five years I haven’t met any scientific literate, but neutral, punter (as opposed to an ideologue) who was still a believer after being pointed toward the actual evidence, or lack of, for AGW.
I still wake up each morning wondering how this junk science became the orthodoxy. Even with the Climategate disclosures I still don’t understand it. As much as I dislike the term I now think it is some form of mass (global) hysteria. In 100 years some PhD psych student is going to be working on this age of stupid and his supervisor will criticise him for not being credible.
Mark down 30 November 2009 as the high water mark for stupid in Australia. And people like Tim Flannery, and Penny Wong will rightfully be torn to pieces by the media and public when they are left high and dry by the tide. Turnbull is perhaps the first public casualty.
The real tragedy is the damage AGW Evangelicals and their unthinking acolytes like Wong, Turnbull and Greg Hunt have done to important scientific institutions in this country and the world like Nature, CSIRO, BOM et al. Science itself will take a generation to recover credibility.
And for those who down play the significance of the Climategate disclosures I ask; what exactly do you think a global conspiracy looks like?
10
Congratulations Mr Abbot.
But the fight is not over. There are ‘Quisling’ Liberals who may cross the Floor. They should be weeded out and encouraged to seek nomination/endorsement with the ALP/Greens or take their opportunistic aspirations elsewhere.
This ‘AGW Scam’ has been talked about and reported in MSM overseas. Yet we have nothing of note reported here. So our MSM has a lot to answer for too. Along with our tax payer funded ABC.
Talk about being ‘Goebbels Compliant’.
10
Jo I thought you were about evidence not spin.
Your comment “but the earlier three-way split had Abbott a clear winner” conveniently ignores that fact that 49 Liberals wanted someone else to be leader… that’s a whopping 60%.
10
I think that I have always been an AGW skeptic. Just lately my BS meter has been popping very rapidly. It is amazing, every time I read a new report in the LSM, there goes the BS-meter if you get my drift. The number of things that can be explained in other ways, that are being attributed to potential global warming is at the point of hysterical. The latest in a string of garbage reports in the Melbourne Age relates to green grass being seen in Antarctica. I guess the author of that piece has never heard of the fact that in summer there is a natural melt? The fact is that glaciers can and do exist when the temperature is greater than 90F – it was certainly the case in the Canadian Rocky Mountains, in the Columbia Icefields.
Personally, I was thankful that Tony Abbott came out very strongly against doing anything right now, and am thankful that he won the leadership ballot. In the past the press went out of their way to give him a bad reputation, but as I am now learning, they do that when they fear the person (like in the Palin Derangement syndrome even though they gave Obama a free pass and he had no experience in a leadership role, or in much else as it has turned out).
I suggest that everybody reads up on the subject, and if you are like me, and not science oriented, just try to at least understand some of the information and get it disseminated anyway. As a good starting point on how long this fraud has been suspected, you can go here:
http://www.congregator.net/articles/majordeception.html.
The articles are interesting because it goes to show that the panel that actually controls the IPCC has been in on the deception for a very long time.
10
From the UK: Well done down-under. Joanne: I’m sure you have played a big part in this. Congratulations to you.
The story hit the BBC news this morning (after the usual pre-Copenhagen Antarctic is melting faster than we thought from Richard Black/David Shukman. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8387137.stm The news quoted Abbot saying global warming is CRAP (spelled out not to offend at breakfast time). I suspect they quoted CRAP to put him in a bad light (after all a good chap wouldn’t use such language, don’t you know).
10
Lets all hope for a sudden outbreak of commonsense.
It is hardly surprising that the Main Stream Media is in denial and ignoring the AGW FRAUD issue. They are addicted to global warming scare stories and unlikely to readily admit that they have been duped. However total censorship may be starting to break down. Climategate has now been covered on ABC Counterpoint. See http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2009/2757619.htm
10
Is it Abbot or Abbott? You use both Joanne.
The BBC news about this has slipped down the order and is now hard to find as a news item http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8387653.stm
[Abbott. Thanks. I think I’ve fixed it. 🙂 — JN]
10
Yes congrats are in order Jo. This blog has had had an impact, and so has every single person who has thrown in their 2 cents along the way. I luv yous all
10
I don’t want to bring religion into this……but we now have a party with an Abbott and a Bishop leading it:)
10
In any argument with pro agw’s they rely on the ultimate trump card;
Peer Reviewed Science.
Now we can all plainly see that the peer review process has been subverted by the faithful to fill an agenda rather than screen scientific endeavours for accuracy and truth.
The criminal destruction of raw data means that no one, not pro or anti agw can EVER test the theory, all they have is massaged data from Jones et al and we can all see how trustworthy that data now is.
Some say this dosent prove a global conspiracy, i say it does.
The individuals are located globally at different universities, all busily peer reviewing and approving papers that fit their ahem, “theory” and denying any sceptical papers that dont go along with the whole scam.
Ive read the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file( contains the programmers notes made at the time the code for the climate models were made) and the emails too and theres little doubt that the conspirators are falsifying the predictions and perpertrating nothing less than a fraud.
Abbot (i hadnt heard of him until this week as im in the UK) is at least someone with some sense and can see through the whole agw claptrap.
Lets hope this is the end of agw and all its worthless faith based junk science.
And still the MSM say *nothing*.
10
Climategate and now a party that will hopefully strike a blow against the AGW scam. Been a good couple of weeks.
The Liberals can romp in the next election if they stick to the principle that truth will out. The general public must be informed. Countering the rubbish the MSM spew out. With this latest victory it was won because there were a few people of principle in the media that pleaded for the public to listen. To the likes of Jo with brilliant websites. To Pollies with common sense and backbone who took a stance.
Keep up the good fight people because we will prevail.
10
Today I heard someon on TV say that the GW elite will pass a resolution at Copenhagen II to transfer USD billions from western countries to developing nations to help them develop green technologies to reverse the effects of climate change.
But climate change has no inherent direction – like Obama’s “change” it is non-specific. So how do you reverse change? Since climate has always changed, it would seem to be a Quixotic fantasy to think man can reverse change to what….NO change?
Great work you are doing JoNovo!
10
Jo and all,
We need a new mechanism – A Science Commission
What we most need immediately is that balanced Royal Commission into the science of climate change. No matter what we as individuals think the answer may be.
As John Hewson said this week, faced with the choice between a stuff-up and a conspiracy, it is usually found to be a stuff-up.
The stuff-up here started in 1896, when Arrhenius set the heat flow from the inside of the Earth (7,000 degrees K, though he did not know that)to space (1 degree k, which maybe he did) at zero.
My own guess, see the website, is that deep geomagnetic field shifts are the driver, but if it is field mice or chocolate frogs instead, we need to know. But who is up to speed on the relevent geophysics? Or chocolate technology? Not me, for sure, though I have played with the former for decades. Not anyone on the planet, in fact. I asked the bloke I would pick for the world’s best man on geomagnetics. He had no idea either, on this lot.
So, it is just a stuff-up. Here the climate scientists have stuffed up. Climategate is real, and those were dishonest players, but most of the AGW camp is genuine folk. Just trying to get to grips with a very complex issue, using monkey brains not designed for the job. Applies to all of us.
Science does not have a proper review process and as we see here that can cause vast problems. Peer review is merely anonymous censorship by the current in-group.
So, we need to develop a mechanism for open and vigorous review, for use now and in future cases. A Royal Commission structure, better now to be called a Science Commission, with heavy use of submitted online data, and then, perhaps some sort of binding public vote or poll, not a decision by one or a group of establishment commissioners. we cannot go to an election or a referendum on every issue, and we cannot trust party politicians either. Their level of understanding here is very low, on all sides, just listen to the phrases. More science in schools would be a good start.
This needs a bit of thought.
Best,
Peter
10
May I ask all a question ?
How do you get a ‘politician’ to admit that he was wrong and has cost the country Billions of dollars ?????
10
This is another step in the fight. Others things we need to do – get an audit of BOM and the CSIRO as I think we will find the corruption there may not be that different to Climategate. We also need to keep pressure up on our political leaders. This whole ‘give the earth the benefit of the doubt’ that the Turnbull/McFarland/Morrisay/Hockey camp needs to be squashed. Lots more to do, lots more victories to be won 🙂
10
If you want to see who is really going to be peeved by this, look here:
http://www.ideacarbon.com/advisors/index.htm
Note the presence of Lord Stern, Head of the US Billionaire funded Grantham Institute at the London School of Economics. Main advisor to world governments and the IPCC on carbon trading.
Author of this: http://tiny.cc/PIRqZ:
Key Elements of a Global Deal:
“Developed countries will need to take on immediate and binding national emissions targets, demonstrate that they can achieve low carbon growth, and transfer resources and technologies to developing countries, before developing countries take on binding national targets of their own by 2020.”
Note the presence of Sam Fankhauser, member of the UK Climate Change Committee, which advises the government on measures to control carbon.
For some more really upset people have a look here and look at the names, http://www.globeinternational.org/
Thank you Australia, thank you Andrew Bolt, thank you Jo Nova.
10
Yes, its time to celebrate and then get back to work. We have won an important battle but the war rages on. The wannabe dictators of the world still want to be dictators of the world. Their tight grip on the press, academia, and too much of government remains. They have spent over a century getting to where they are. They are NOT about to give it up. As in the Star Wars mythology, The Empire WILL strike back.
It helps us that they are fighting a two front war. The first is against a reality that has not been very cooperative lately (was it ever?). The second is against we who simply want to remain free and live our lives without them dictating our every thought, word, and deed while they steal us blind. We, on the other hand are just fighting them. Looks like hopeful odds to me.
PS: Love the picture.
10
Good for you Aussies!
Let this be an example for the rest of the world of returning to sanity.
Thanks to websites like this one!
10
I like to think of myself as environmentally conscious: I refuse plastic bags at shop, I ride public transport, I don’t own a car, I recycle. So I was initially sympathetic to the idea of AGW.
I come from a family of lay preachers and salesmen – not a good combination. However they did teach me to think critically, to question my own beliefs. That plus some work background in communications and marketing alerted me to the hype of AGW. Overselling your product is always a bad sign!
I first became aware of the distortion of science in the social sciences where advocacy commonly takes the place of objectivity. All that is seen is the headline not the dodgy logic behind the supposed “study” or research.
Not surprisingly, this often well intention, but agenda driven advocacy, made its way to the hard sciences.
10
I did my bit. This whole climate change dark-age needs to be over with, and soon.
Dear Senator,
Regarding the ETS and climate change in general, as a Liberal supporter I have found the throwing around by Rudd and Turnbull of the word “denier” and “sceptic” one of the most bizzare and worrying developments in politics in this country, as if this is a modern day inquisition which it isn’t. It is one element of why I believe the whole climate change movement is rigged and bogus, but thats my opinion. Call me a sceptic? So be it.
Please vote to delay the ETS until after Copenhagen. There are many good reasons to do this obviously even if you are a true believer.
10
Just cruising through the Austar. Barnaby Joyce was speaking in the Senate spelling out how the ETS is nothing but a huge new tax.
Spoke about how the Govt. will not address scientific issues nor say how much they expect CO2 to drop or even change with the tax.
Senate now adjourned till 10 am tomorrow. Every day gives Minchin time to put the screws on any potential Lib deserters.
10
Nevertheless, Kevin will still attempt to stride the world stage at Copenhagen like a colossus; but unfortunately without his bauble, as Tony Abbott described it on the 7:30 report tonight.
10
World leaders at Copenhagen should be questioned about Climategate and whether climatologist can define ‘climate’; The Air Vent:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/open-letter/
10
Make no mistake. The anger of the Australian public has been aroused. If Rudd thinks he has a trigger for a double dissolution, then I say to him…Go for it.
But watch out Rudd.
Your current massive majority will be whittled to size, and more importantly, you will lose whatever bargaining power you think you have in the Senate..
Calling for an early will cost the Labor party big time.
Rudd’s been bragging about wanting a punch-up with the Liberals, but now they have elected a man who actually boxed professionally.
I can almost see Rudd quivering as Abbott lines him up :
Biff…Thump…Whammo…
Thanks for putting a Spine back into the Liberals.
It’s the best news I have had all day.
Aqua Fyre
10
I notice you thank Denis Jensen, Cory Bernardi and Andrew Bolt. All good men but lets not forget Steve Fielding. An independent with no back up from a party machine who went out on a limb and was fearless and persistent in his attack on the misinformation. He also had to accept a lot of humiliation from the childishness of the main stream press that passes for journalism in Australia. When are these wankers going to understand that it is their job to investigate and expose these scams and not to be cheerleaders for the current fad ideology.
[Good point. I’d done it tacitly by supporting his call for a Royal Commission, but yes, Fielding is a star. (Finally a politician doing what politicians should do — JN]
10
Charles, I have good news.
As anyone who has travelled outside of Oz realises, the rest of the world doesn’t even know we are here. The more so now, as Kev most probably won’t have his ETS to flash to anyone.
10
As much as I like Steve Fielding’s idea of a Royal Commission, I think it would fail to get the information it needs from international bodies such as the IPCC and research institutions from other countries. This really needs to be addressed at an international level, and a thorough scientific audit needs to be undertaken of the IPCC. No politicians, just independent scientists. It will be difficult to achieve with such a polarised debate, but it needs to happen.
I agree Abbott and Bishop sounds like some sort of religious coalition, but I think we have just seen the breaking of a religion of the rich coalition between Rudd and Turnbull – the AGW believers. The Australian Government has been the play thing of these guys who have used it as a vehicle for advancing their personal agendas. Rudd as a stepping stone to the UN and Turnbull on his way to PM and then whatever his agenda was. Abbott may be seen as an arch conservative, but he did seem humbled by the position and more in touch with the average voter. Hopefully we’ll get a dose of reality when it comes to AGW.
10
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Grant Fisher and Grant Fisher, John Pol. John Pol said: The Global Gravy Train Takes A Major Political Hit « JoNova http://bit.ly/72RSZN […]
10
This is actually a good thing, Dean. No group of people should be given the power to be believed without skepticism, analysis, and confirmation. Not only does power corrupt, but power like this will attract the already corrupt. This is probably what has happened in journalism, as well.
10
My worry in all this is the sleepers, the Green Party. They have said that because the reduction of CO2 is too low, they are voting No in the Senate on the ETS bill – but:-
From that ABC Online tonight 1/12/09:
“Greens Leader Bob Brown has called on the Government to deal with them to get the bills through.”
“The Government now has a rolled gold opportunity to renegotiate with the Greens and to adopt a course of action which would, with Liberal dissenters, see real action on climate change instead of the block we’re going to see if we’re going to proceed as we are in the Senate.”
It is still possible that the Greens can do a deal with the government, and use that to gain variations in the ETS down the track, with preferences as bait. The government has shown it is willing to compromise on the ETS to get it past the post.
10
Well done, JoAnne! Finally, a sliver of political sanity somewhere in the world. We in the US are watching closely, and hopefully will learn from this.
Cheers.
10
The news from the US of A on the 3rd of November 2009 was the start of the demise of the AGW movement. In New Jersey last year Obama received 61% of the Vote. This year Republican candidate for Governor Christopher Christie polled 60% of the vote. In Virginia Obama received 69 % of the vote last year. This year Republican candidate Bob McDonnell received 75% of the vote for Governor. This great turn around occured in one year. Kevin and Penny’s trousers must be in danger of being soiled.
10
Good on you. Not much chance of us batting this away in the UK. Our Government has a lunatic for a leader and the only opposition to AGW comes from the far-right (BNP)! We’ll see; it may sink in eventually. I noticed that John Redwood, a Conservative MP here in the UK, has started proposing mitigation policy as preferable to carbon trading/taxes. It’s a start.
Anyway James Delingpole in the Telegraph provides a great quote, cribbed from Terry McCrann in Australia’s Herald Sun:
10
Tony Abbott is a disaster. Come to your senses people – he’s a joke!
10
Congratulations on this victory.
Unfortunately it’s only one battle in a long war.
Do I dare hope that this will have some reverberations in Copenhagen and make it even less likely that there’ll be an agreement?
In any case, this is wonderful news.
10
Thanks for all your comments. It is a rare day. A real turning point. I am still smiling…:-)
(But I’m going to write to those liberal senators again, just in case.)
So in a three way split Abbott got 40%? Like I said, a clear winner on first preferences. That the second round was “one vote” was not something I hid.
50% of our major opposition is now (most probably) aware of the scam and that’s great news.
BTW: If people want to register to the site, see top right. I’m now sending out an email to subscribers as soon as I put up posts that I feel are more significant or interesting. It works well.
PS: If anyone uses Stumbleupon, we appreciate your help. Thanks!It’s been a major traffic winner around here, and it’s great to bring in new people. I’m delighted to see so many sane souls who are looking into the information for themselves.
10
Jeff in 39 – I read a good piece in Businessspectator.com.au (maybe not the .au) today saying that regardless of your opinions on climate change, this was probably the most business and agriculture friendly ETS that was ever going to present itself. ANything passed with the greens, or a majority labor govt, will be far more restrictive.
10
Good on you and your countrymen, Jo. It’s a fine start to getting insanity stopped. Hopefully there will be plenty of conversation at Copenhagen as to what the fine folks from “down under” have handed the rest of us in terms of a much needed re-think on climate change.
IPCC be hanged—if we’re to do it right this time, there should be some global effort to create a ‘scientific’ review of this matter at a price—a price that at any level would be nothing more than “a mote in God’s eye” compared to the absurd cost of cap and trade. Is it possible to do this and leave out politics? Hmmm,
Lots of talk here in America now beginning to filter up regarding the newly discovered emails and the names of those who believed it appropriate to tinker with the science, and to a large degree it is because of sites like Jo’s and the fine list of very savvy participants who bothered to see this matter received the right amount of light. For those of us who are only skeptical based on a hunch or less, we thank you all.
However, it’s not over by a stretch. I hope no one loses determination until we see this thing explained and finally buried, along with a host of proponents who may have had sinister methods blended in with their madness.
10
Geez, this site is the motherlode of deranged conspiracy theorists, all congratulating each other on showing common sense. As an Australian, I am utterly ashamed of the moronic shallow group-think so plainly on display here. What are you thinking? Do you see bogeymen around every corner. Go back to the 19th Century where you belong.
10
From Sweden:
Congratulations to you all ‘down under’ for this! Ok, it’s only one battle in a long war, but a superbly important one! My hope is now, that this commonsense turns into a world record fast spreading ‘pandemic’ as it needs to reach and ‘infect’ our PM [as EU chairman & ‘the rest of the ‘people’] before he leaves for COP15.
BTW: Hello BobC!
Brgds from the Bestcoast/Sweden
//TJ
10
Here is some interesting information:
450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
10
Congratulations to our friends down under. Great work Jo. I especially like the fact that your Mr. Rudd decided to take a detour to the States to have some pre-Copenhagen discussions with our Mr. Obama – on the very eve of your historic legislative action.
If the secret leaker of the CRU files is reading —– THANK YOU. I hope the legal air clears and you can come out of hiding because you have earned a place in posterity.
The suffix “gate” in Climategate, derives of course, from the original Watergate mess over here in the 70s. The secret source of info at that time was dubbed “Deep Throat”. What do we call our benefactor who divulged the CRU mess – Long Fingers?
10
Joanne
On reflection, I’m not so sure about the title of this article. The way things have been going recently, unless we win this battle against corrupt science and politics, history will be rewritten so that this event on this day never happened.
10
Next up Copenhagen. The village idiot convention is still scheduled and they have many barrels of green koolaid to drink.
I also can’t find anyone on this site that opposes a clean environment. Part of the red herring the AGW crowd abused is claiming we want to waste the environment and make it dirty.
10
Henry (No. 53)
“I also can’t find anyone on this site that opposes a clean environment. Part of the red herring the AGW crowd abused is claiming we want to waste the environment and make it dirty.”
Very true. As I always tell my classes (for years now) when I lecture on the climate change juggernaut, you can’t accuse a geologist of not caring about the environment or the Earth. One can’t dedicate a lifetime to studying and understanding the Earth and not give a single jot about its condition.
10
Anyone seen any comment/reaction from either Gillard or Rudd ?
The Kevin747 I can convince the world tour is looking a bit crook.
A few days in politics is a long time. It seems like only yesterday that StKevin the Smug was sitting in CHOGM listening to ideas about kicking Canada out of the Commonwealth because of its “denial”. He has some explaining to do to his globalist mates.
10
Hey Rumble, 6 insults in one short comment.
Explain how substantiated and undenied collusion across three of the most major research centres qualifies as something other than conspiracy. If that’s not, what is?
Then explain where that mystery paper with empirical evidence is that none of the advocates of the crisis can find? That’s got nothing to do with a conspiracy. (Not unless you are suggesting we’ve conspired to hide it?)
Empty bully boy pronouncements are not going to win over anyone.
—
“Long Fingers” – I like it. Thanks Tom!
10
Rumble – No. 48.
Did you say Consiracy THEORISTS? I am sorry but there just ain’t no THEORIZING on this one. This is not the Kennedy assassination, clouded in ambiguity. The people who colluded in hiding (and losing) data, manipulating computer predictions and retrogressions, suppressing alternative research, strong-arming the peer review process have – get this firmly into your head – ADMITTED that the revealing e-mails are valid, correct, of their own devising and composition and they have not stated that the content and messages instructing each other, across and between continents to do those very things (above), have been adultered.
Could you please explain to us who are trapped in the Victorian age what WOULD constitute a “modern” conspiracy?
While we await your reply, perhaps we can bake up that pie consisting of four and twenty blackbirds so you and your ilk can eat some crow.
10
[…] like Senator Fielding. See Global Gravy Trains takes a Major Political Hit by Joanne Nova here. Let’s hope this is just the first of the global green dominos to […]
10
As they shouted when an Australian won the main event at the World Series of Poker: AUSSIE! AUSSIE! AUSSIE1
Thank you Australia for having the first government to show both common sense and a backbone.
I noticed that up to the comment by Rumble Mourdre: December 2nd, 2009 at 12:14 am, a single “dislike” vote was registered against each comment. I think Rumble might have been very busy. Now a note to Rumble: You’d better revisit this website and complete your voting. The “Like” votes are swamping you. Maybe you can figure out a way to vote more than once. Your brethren often have.
10
Great! Keep up the great work down under. Maybe this will help a few more in the US see the light. The laws of science are not subject to change by voting. Religion has its place and I am praying that more people will have the sense to understand what is being done to them by the climate alarmists.
10
A modest proposal
Since its becoming quite clear that we cannot trust the data coming from governmental or academic agencies, how about setting up our own network of temperature/weather monitors? Sure, it is a nit picking bother but is it less of a bother to allow the AGW/Climate-change crowd control our every thought, word, and action based upon a pack of lies, distortions, and misrepresentations?
It shouldn’t take a huge amount of data to establish the temperature variation caused by the siting and housing of the temperature stations. A rather simple series of experiments could be designed and performed to give us real data. That way, we could show how valid/invalid the “official” temperature records actually are. If they are not valid in the short run, they cannot be valid over the long run. WE would have the data and they couldn’t cook the books.
This is not, as they say, rocket science, but it is science done the old fashion way: honestly and by people interested in discovering what actually is the case rather than proving a presupposition. You don’t need to be a credentialed scientist. Considering that its highly credentialed scientists who have driven the AGW scam from the get go, it might be better to be an honest plumber, electrician, engineer, programmer, or even a used car salesman.
Let’s do some real science for a change because science isn’t only for scientists. It also for real people living real lives in the real world.
Any takers?
10
At the BBC, there is an article “‘Show Your Working’: What ‘ClimateGate’ means” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8388485.stm which is written by Mike Hulme (whose fingers are all over AGW) and another. This is the Mike Hulme who a couple of years ago wrote:
“Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists – and politicians – must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity.” My emphasis.
Can you believe this?
10
rammey,
So the truth isn’t a matter of majority opinion? Al Gore will be so-o-o-o disappointed.
10
Joanne Nova: Post 45,
FYI, Joanne, I’ve been receiving them on a regular basis. Question: From what I’ve read so far, Abbott and friends can delay any new voting for what 3 months??? Did I read this right???
10
I also think that those who oppose the ETS and other shallow measures proposed to combat the non-existent problem are the greater humanitarians. I believe the human toll from the ETS we have here in New Zealand will be very high. Expand that out across the globe and this could be worse than any of the recent “pandemics”.
10
Lionell Griffith: Post 61,
I’m always for “real Science” but I think you need to explain the parameters of this..I have an indoor/outdoor thermometer..It’s in the shade most of the time except when the Sun comes up. I feel its pretty accurate, it’s analog, liquid filled bulb. Or are you looking at Digital sensors and/or “Weather Stations”? This of course is more money to be spent..
10
Just for snicks and giggles take a look at the following video. New movie by Al Gore. Priceless.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/12/scientific-american-answers-to.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LuboMotlsReferenceFrame+%28Lubos+Motl%27s+reference+frame%29.
10
Phillip Bratby (62)
What that article says to me is that those of us with a traditional scientific mindset don’t stand a chance against this new era of “post-normal science”. This is typical of the woolly mindset of modernism and post-modernism. There has been a total rejection of absolutes. Our ability to debate issues has been undermined because the terminology we use and have in common with post-moderns has been redefined in their thinking (and I am using “thinking” in a very liberal sense).
Climategate is not so much a travesty in terms of the climate issues that have been subverted, but the subversion of the scientific process. We have relativists working in areas where the data has a story to tell but if the narrative is not a story we like, then we are free to change that story.
Sorry to get all philosophical but from where I sit, I think that there is a huge void between the AGW believers (currently in denial) and the skeptics. We skeptics ask for “evidence” and they trot out some lengthy discourse of waffle. When we point out that there is no hard evidence in what they have presented, their confusion is heightened. They do not understand the concept of facts, figures, data and absolutes as we do. When they point to “peer-reviewed” documents and we show that there is no objectivity in their peer review process they are even ore confused by our insistence on objectivity and transparency. These things we take for granted are not part of their world view. And they are aided and abetted by a like minded media.
And then we get frustrated and annoyed and when we try to process all the fluff our minds implode.
10
Lets not waste our time on whether global temperatures change but on why they change. That to me is where the “meat” is. Most agree that global temperatures cycle. It also seems clear from climategate emails that even the climate alarmists acknowledge that global temperatures have not increased the past 10 years or so. To me the challenge is to have the masses understand what the real issue is. Climategate has served to clarify that most do not understand the real issue. The climate alarmists are using climategate to misguide the argument and divert the emphasis from where it should be.
The Question is Not “if” but “why”
Climategate Clearly Demonstrates that Most do not Understand the Critical Question about Climate Change!
Most scientists agree that global climate temperatures increased the last 1-1/2 centuries. The question is why? If not caused by increase in greenhouse gases then sequestering in the Cap and Tax bill is very counterproductive. After a review of all of the data, nearly all honest scientists reach the conclusion that the increase in global temperatures was due to recovery from the little Ice Age, not from the increase in co2 in the air from the Industrial Revolution.
No hard data has yet been put forth by anyone that proves it was from Co2. In contrast , there is reams of data showing that the earth has been going thru natural temperature cycles for millions of years. For nearly all global temperature cycles except this last one, greenhouse gases did not increase until hundreds or thousands of years after the temperature increase, completely destroying the claim that greenhouse gases caused the temperature change. Also the global temperatures stopped increasing in this last temperature cycle about ten years ago, while greenhouse gases emissions continued increasing, showing again that greenhouse gases are not causing global temperature increases.
Co2sceince.org has an great index to all of the real world data. Sincerely, Ray Hull P.E., Prescott, AZ 86305
10
JoAnn – I know we are NOT to use the ‘E’ word at this site, so I won’t but there is something relevant to say in response to Phillip’s comment (No. 68).
Here in the States the crusaders who fight the anit-E movement have been making a claim for several years now that anyone who denies (you know what) also deny climate change and other less palatable things.
I have warned them repeatedly not to link the lot of E_ _ _ _ _ _ _ n with cliamte science as it would only result in tears.
Of course, I was ridiculed, even though I teach E _ _ … as part of my college geology curriculum but still managed to somehow also maintain that the so-called climate SCIENCE (?) was immature and no basis for policy making.
The anit -E crowd has been saying for years that their own “scientific” research (I.D.) has been excluded from publication and mainstream science by the cabal of biologists and that they are marginalized by the E _ _ _ _… bully-boys.
We have not even begun to see the repurcussions from ClimateGate which promise to reverberate around the world in other scientific venues for a LONG time to come.
Let’s face it. How are we going to defend the veracity of the scientific process against any claim of bias, exclusion and manipulation in light of this. Our mere assertion that our own brand of science is not subject to such shannanigans will justifiably fall on deaf ears. This has been my very real fear all along – not to climate science. I figured that in the end, the truth will out, but the rebound effect on other sciences.
All of science is culpable in this mess. I can’t tell you how many scientists I know who just simply accepted the B.S. coming out of CRU, NASA, PennState, without a critical thought. that kind of unreasoned faith in the pronouncements of fellow scientists is irresponsible behaviour. I know, personally, one very bright ecologist who convinced his own sister to sell her beachfront house (That is mid-Atlantic Coast property which will only skyrocket in value) because rising sea levels would SOON render its value null. And this is at a location with a beach profile of a couple meters at least.
That borderrs on criminal negligence in my book except he wasn’t retained by his sister for professional advice. If one has the tools and knowledge to have known better, then one should not be advising people to make stupid decisions.
The scientific community, except of few of us who take no real pleasure in the recent shameful revelations, now must lie in the bed that we made ourselves.
10
this is a great news for us in europe as well 🙂
well done aussis
roger from germany…
10
Rammey: Inm re: No 69 – “nearly all honest scientists reach the conclusion that the increase in global temperatures was due to recovery from the little Ice Age,”
That does not answer the question “why”. Why was there a Little Ice Age at all and why did we come out of it is a different issue than the RESULT that temperatures increased since 1880 when the LIA ended.
This is the real travesty – scientists could have spent the last ten years and innumerable millions of $$ answering those types of qwuestions but chose to follow the $$$ regardless of where they led.
10
@Tom G
Have a look to the sun, than you have your reason
10
It’s great that the politicians in at least one country are starting to see through the climate change haze.
I don’t expect any criminal complaints against those involved in climategate. But, as a result, the groundwork has not been laid to establish support for the future prosecution of politicians who fail to heed the scientific truth. A defense like “There was no evidence that the scientific basis for the consensus was flawed” will not work. From here on out, policy makers in Oz and elsewhere are on notice that the public has been enlightened to the flawed research that’s at the heart of justifying ‘climate change’ related legislation and if they do something stupid by ignoring the evidence, they will be held accountable.
George
10
Krishna Gans:
I am aware of the influence of the sun and orbital forcings – as well as the role of even longer term inputs such as tectonics – I am simply pointing out that coming out of the LIA is not an explanatory mechanism for the 1880-present increase.
Solar/lunar influences are probably the greatest “drivers” of climatic cycles, but the studies and data on those and other natural mechanisms are not yet conclusive enough to make pronouncements. Let’s not fall into the trap which caught our AGW colleagues – let’s not make conclusions ahead of the conclusive research and then try to retrofit to it.
Let’s rather say that solar/lunar influences are among many potential natural climatic influences on short term (10-100 yr) and long term (>100 yr) scales. As long as we remove anthropogenic CO2 as THE causative factor, we are in a position to use some really lucrative budgets to answer the fundamental question of, to what degree do each of the natural factors affect cyclicity and does that leave any room for anthropogenic factors?
10
Ok,
Leaders take note. This is what happens when balanced debates are denied and the press is manipulated into suppressing a story. Also, when this does get into the mainstream, there will be a tidal wave of sceptics around.
It is a part of the human condition to get angry when lied to. There will be consequences.
I must admit over the last couple of weeks I was getting despondent about the obvious censorship which exists on this issue (and continues), unfortunately. Now I am thinking that provided the net isn’t censored as well, then once again it can be used to keep people talking.
This is a great start, but it is only a start. We need the likes of Abbott and Co to get climategate into the mainstream. I am not too hopeful that this will be anytime soon as he has a fractured party at the moment. I would bet that he is just dying to break the story.
My advice would be to take the supression of the press angle – why is the Australian peoples ABC not covering this Mr Rudd? Ms Wong?
Why are the editors afraid of breaking the story?
I notice today that Phil Jones has decided to Step aside – no sebuku for “the cause” as he put it. I guess we’d better get to work and analyze this one:
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate
10
Denny @ 66,
The first step is to do some real science to determine how to take reliable temperature data. Part of that task is to determine the capabilities and limitations of the equipment we have on hands in the environment we have control over. One does not need costly equipment and high powered computers to do this.
Its a simple variation study to determine how reliably we can read the equipment we have and what the various environmental factors we experience do to those readings. Without this step being done, its no point in doing anything. Its called qualifying your equipment and methods and discovering the parts of your environment you must control in some way. The only investment is time, a note book, and a ball point pen.
The idea is to get in the habit of doing rigorous work with basic tools. Then one can apply the same approach to whatever level of expensive equipment one can afford.
10
Viscount Monckton is on to it http://pathstoknowledge.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/too-late-for-resignations-in-climategate-as-requests-for-charages-are-being-filed/
Criminals he’s after.
10
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate
That sounds very “independent”. UEA are going to have a hand in the appointment of the reviewer(s), the terms of reference etc. Maybe they should help in reducing the timeframe by writing the conclusion as well.
10
[…] one, how many of the homeless and poor are unnecessarily dying from the cold. And all because of Government’s and green groups gravy train that ignores their plight focusing instead on their rabid push of global warming […]
10
Something comes to mind involving foxes and fowl of some species… what is it now?
10
Rumble :
We should go back to 19th century ? You should come too. You’ll feel right at home :
• 1881: “This past Winter, both inside and outside the Arctic circle, appears to have been unusually mild. The ice is very light and rapidly melting …”
LOL
10
Giving the earth the benefit of the doubt
http://www.twawki.com
In recent days “giving the earth the benefit of the doubt” has been the mantra in a certain Liberal sector of Australian politics. Not only has my local parliamentarian (Scott Morrison) repeatedly reiterated this in his recent speeches, but Joe Hockey, Ian McFarlane, Malcolm Turnbull and the other warmist faithful have all uttered this phrase as though somehow it gives them a mandate for their behavior and stance on climate change.
So what does giving the earth the benefit of the doubt mean? …..
10
Now this is interesting: Is the edifice cracking?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/01/phil-jones-steps-down/
10
Caesar is dead!(maybe global warming brought the `Ides of march early,Mr turnbull,eh?) Hope springs eternal!..Although we should not forget the protagonists of the great global warming swindle almost have the world in their grasp and the krudd kronies have no choice but to go into `scare em stupid` overdrive as this might well be labores nemesis Ala `work choices`. A unlimitted scope `AGW` royal commission with wholly transparent published results could well be the order of the day as this would expose the CO2N and lead to the annihilation of labor in 2010. krudd was insistant that Aussies give the world an example of leadership apropos AGW. Yesterday we did! praises and credit to those like Jo, Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones, brian wilshire et al who stepped up to the plate despite the `conventional wisdom` and suffered the relentless onslaught of the shrill, but yesterday started to see the fruits of passionate labour… the garrot is slipped neatly around the lefts neck, now to squeeze & turn em from red to blue..
10
Amazing, just heard it on Macquarie Network news as well.
10
Mark Stevens:
Much as I agree with your idea, keep in mind that politicians will NEVER hold an inquiry where they don’t know what the result will be.
10
It’s reported on foxnews.com that Phil Jones is stepping down while the whole thing is investigated, ostensibly so he won’t be in the way of the investigation. He’s quoted at some length — a lot of garbage — but he begins with this gem, “What is most important is that CRU continues its world leading research with as little interruption and diversion as possible.” I marvel that he doesn’t get dizzy and fall down after that bit of spin.
The emperor has no cloths on! This is not a scientist, this is a quack!
10
The Question is Not “if” but “why”
Climategate Clearly Demonstrates that Most People do not Understand the Critical Question about Climate Change!
Most scientists agree that global climate temperatures increased the last 1-1/2 centuries. The question is why? If not caused by increase in greenhouse gases then sequestering in the Cap and Tax bill is very counterproductive. After a review of all of the data, nearly all honest scientists reach the conclusion that the latest increase in global temperatures was due to recovery from the little Ice Age, not from the increase in co2 in the air from the Industrial Revolution.
No hard data has yet been put forth by anyone that proves it was from Co2. In contrast, there are reams of data showing that the earth has been going thru natural temperature cycles for millions of years. For nearly all global temperature cycles except this last one, greenhouse gases did not increase until hundreds or thousands of years after the temperature increase, completely destroying the claim that greenhouse gases caused the temperature change. Also the global temperatures stopped increasing in this last temperature cycle about ten years ago, while greenhouse gases emissions continued increasing, showing again that greenhouse gases are not causing global temperature increases.
Certainly we need to ask why does the global climate go through cycles? That question must be answered no doubt, but clearly it is not because of changes in the air’s co2 content. Over the climate history of the Earth, solar forcing factors correlate much better with the Earth’s climate history. There is ample real world hard data showing co2 lags the rise in Earth’s temperature by an average of 800 years, completely debunking co2 as cause of global climate change. The following quote from co2science.org——-
“the weight of the great body of real-world evidence ……… clearly suggests that the sun is indeed the prime determinant of earth’s climate, with CO2 being merely a “bit player” in the grand scheme of things.”
pretty well sums it up.
Until conclusive proof is available on the real root causes, we should not risk trillions of dollars on sequestering co2 when it is very unlikely that it will do very little if anything about global temperatures.
Co2sceince.org has an great index to all of the real world data. Sincerely, Ray Hull P.E., Prescott, AZ 86305
10
Fellow Commenters,
Why don’t we do what commenters did for James Delingpole’s article and submit Joanne’s article to the Drudge Report?
Should generate a heap of traffic.
And it’s easy.
Copy the the link to this page and paste it in the suggestion box on http://www.drudgereport.com, near the bottom of the right-hand column.
Great work, Jo!
10
No time to pat Jo on the back. What do we do now?
Phil Jones will not be stood down for long. Surely too much depends upon his name being cleared. I’d suggest that the “independent investigation” will not be so.
All those science qualified types need to keep up the input here and plug the pollies. Any ideas on how to best use Facebook etc to get real info spread. No good “preaching to the converted”.
Great to see world-wide posts here to-day.
How about a list of web references for new-comers to check out?
A quick personal thank-you to Peter Sawyer, author of “The Greenhoax Effect” who first woke me up to all this in the late 80s.
Thanks all,
JPAK.
10
I came across this comment in a copy of a speech made by Dennis Jensen MP to the House of Reps on 3 June 2009 during the Second Reading debate on the CPRS:
“The Chief Scientist, Penny Sackett, is an exceptionally competent astrophysicist. The interesting thing is that she is making all these religious pronouncements about the effect of climate change — ’We’ve only got six years before we reach the tipping point’ and all the rest of it. Yet in discussion she was not even aware that the response of temperature to carbon dioxide concentration is logarithmic. ….. But a very competent scientist, our Chief Scientist, is making dire pronouncements without actually knowing the details of the science. This is very concerning”.
Can this be true? The mind boggles – is she across the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun yet and does gravity really suck!
10
Rumble Mourdre
“Go back to the 19th Century where you belong.”
The 19th Century inherited and enhanced the mantle of science it received from the 18th Century (Age of Reason) where faith was replaced with the requirement of proof.
AGW wants us to go back to faith, and to that I say, Never again.
10
Lionell Griffith:
December 1st, 2009 at 8:32 pm
I like the idea, we could collect the data by internet from every “subscriber” rather quickly. When the number of subscribers gets too large to handle simply, we could use “distributed processing” like the SETI at home project uses. In fact we can call the project: Search for Correlated Esoteric Proof of Temperature by Independent Collectors SCEPTIC for short!
Jo, do you think there would be any value in sending a letters to your senators from us in the USA (or other countries) simply thanking them and offering encouragement? It seems to me that you are the leaders in the first wave of success (we owe you).
10
Ok,
Just a quick show of hands. Who took scientific advice from :
An ex Vice President of the US with a degree in fine arts and Law?
The IPCC who’s mere establishment was specifically for the purpose of “Proving Man Made Climate Change”?
Manns Hockey stick graph?
The PR Spinners employed by the ~80b of research funding for AGW?
Kev, Penny, the ABC editors, ok, you guys with you hands up. Walk into the corner with you face to the wall with your hands on your head.
Now think about the following:
1) No-one can accurately predict next years weather properly and they were telling us temps would rise by X degrees over the next century?
2) No the poor Polar bears are not in decline, most populations have been on the increase for quite a while
3) Why do people only want to save the cute animals anyways (although adult polar bears are not cute)?
4) Global Warming to climate change – what a croc, the climate always changes, it’s called “the weather”.
5) Do you really believe that C02 is more evil than, say, the Dioxin pollution in Vietnam?
All of this hoax found ripe ground, I reckon due to larger numbers of people living in urban areas with no real understanding of their local weather patterns let alone weather elsewhere. This was compounded by the whole thought of Change. People hate change, Al Gore and company knew this and exploited that fear of change by threatening them with massive climate changes.
Which have not occurred….
And the left wing pollies picked up on this opportunity and have been exploiting it ever since.
I don’t think we have enough dunce hats to we?
10
Attention Victorians:
Senator Judith Troeth has just announced that she will cross the floor and support the ETS when the vote comes up in a couple of hours.
She is NOT there to indulge her personal fantasies. She is there to represent the interests of those who put her there.
Wonder if she can answer these two questons.
(1) By how much will this reduce carbon dioxide?
(2) By how much will this cool the planet?
No? Thought not.
10
Madjak, it’s worse than even you describe. Somehow we managed to allow scientists(?) to set up ground based temperature monitoring devices in places all over North America, for example, that even 5th and 6th grade science students would consider to be located in highly questionable places if one were attempting to gain accurate, mean average temperature detail. Somehow or other this and other very non-scientific episodes were the basis for creating a global nightmare scheme of cap and trade. If one starts out with junk data, one will conclude with—!
I’m naive enough not to know whether the global scientific community is looking at what’s going on here with a genuine concern about attempting very soon to try to regain global credibility. It’s not often that science and politics joins hands in attempts to literally recreate our world for humanity for any reason. One would assume that a hard discussion about how to proceed from hereon would be high on their agenda.
I’m no scientist, but having been involved in business and politics all my 64 years and an avid reader of science on many levels, I hope some of the earlier posts about the immediate need to try to coalesce a global approach from any and all in the science community to work out a framework for moving ahead, cleaning up the mess, and getting folks awakened to the need for ‘good’ science.
Once again, Jo, great site—and thanks.
10
STOP PRESS: This just received by email from Senator John Williams of the Australian National Party (coalition partners of the Liberal Party):
2nd December, 2009.
RUDD’S MASSIVE TAX CONSIGNED TO HISTORY
The new tax masquerading as the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will not be lumped on the Australian community after the legislation was voted down in the Senate.
The Nationals Senator for New South Wales John Williams said the result vindicates the stand taken by The Nationals over the past year as they warned the nation of financial pain if the flawed emissions trading scheme was introduced.
Senator Williams said it was the groundswell of public opinion that carried the day.
“My office and those of my Nationals colleagues have been inundated with thousands of emails, phone calls and faxes congratulating The Nationals on our position and hoping the Liberals would join our fight.
It has become obvious people are now starting to realise the cost to them personally and to the nation.
Despite being labelled sceptics and deniers by the Prime Minister and his Climate Change Minister, these Australians are genuinely concerned for the environment but the little they know about this scheme they don’t like.
They are worried about their jobs, the future of our industries, the extra $1100 households will have to find annually because of the ETS, and the upward pressure on interest rates.
People are amazed to learn that as part of a proposed global agreement, Australia will have to contribute to a fund to assist developing countries reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and industrial giant China is one of those countries.
So that means we are borrowing from China to finance our debt, and on the other hand giving them money to help them clean up their act.
The Rudd Government has not properly explained this scheme to the Australian people but arrogantly tried to push the bills through the Senate. Rightfully they have been rebuffed”, Senator Williams said.
ENDS
10
I’ll be happier once the senate vote is over and the bill is decided one way or the other…. If it is voted down, then the Liberal party can fight Rudd with great effectiveness in the coming election by attacking his Great Green Tax on Everything….
If seven senators cross the floor…. Then the whole thing becomes high farce.
I’m pretty confident that the CPRS bill will be defeated.
10
LOL… Cool. It was defeated.
10
Hi Folks:
I am a retired Seismic Surveyor. I have worked for 30 years in western Canada, in our Arctic, and our High Arctic. I also spent a few months on the North Slope of Alaska, SW of Umiat. Add to that, a month in the NE of the Republic of Niger, in the Sahel (1972), and another month 50 miles south of Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania (1986), and I have seen the weather in quite a bit of countryside. Outdoors, eh?
Anthropogenic Global Warming is BS! Climate Change, otoh, is always with us. Why, Greenland still has not warmed up enuf to allow a Dairy Farmer to grow his own grain and hay – he has to import it from Denmark!
Looking at the Geological Record, up to the Chinese records, then other records of more recent vintage, until Fahrenheit started selling his Thermometers, we can tell, from the crops-grown, and their yields, what the weather was like. I use the several Growing Zones, in the Canadian Province of Alberta, as an example of how the last killing frost in Spring,, and the first killing frost in Autumn, restrict the choice of grain crops to plant, until the problem gets so bad that only some vegetables, and Hay, may be used as crops.
By the by, the Original Climate Records, kept since Benjamin Franklin started, to now, are still safe in the US Weather Service Files. Same, same, in every other country that keeps weather records. The old sailing ship Logs, and the Steamship Logs, are still safe, and can be used as sources of day-by-day temperature records, plus comments on winds and storms. The records kept by the Whaling Fleets of old, can also be mined for temperature and weather notes. Further back, the Dendochronolgy done by folks not afflicted with AGW are still valid, as are the discoveries from Ocean and Lake-bottom mud-cores. Further back, there are many reconstructions by Geologists, who have the advantages conferred by access to the Rock Cores from Oil and Natural Gas well-drilling.
Neil Frandsen
from Lethbridge, Alberta, on the High Plains of North America.
10
I am SO glad I came across this site – not only is it so instructive about the mindset of people reinforcing each other in psychological denial, but it’s the best laugh I’ve had in years. You guys are a complete cack! We’ll set up our network of weather stations – woo hoo!
Let’s send Lionell to set up a new network in Antarctica – I believe there are only 50 there. When he’s done, he can work on the marine network – there’s quite a few of those. Let’s put Jo in charge of the new independent satellite network – both geostationary and polar – I believe there are only about 90 of them (Ian Plimer can probably cough up the cash from all the money he’s made on his ridiculous non-science book and speaker’s fees). And because all the scientists are in league with the grand conspiracy, we can’t trust either their measurements OR their instruments, so CyberForester can be in charge of inventing new visible, thermal, radar and infra-red spectrum machines to tell us what’s REALLY going on with all the plotting behind those closed laboratory doors. I could go on but, well, this says it all: “I have an indoor/outdoor thermometer..It’s in the shade most of the time except when the Sun comes up. I feel its pretty accurate, it’s analog, liquid filled bulb.”
Ah, let’s do some real science: you guys crack me up.
That light you see at the end of the tunnel is a train coming, people.
10
“I’ll be happier once the senate vote is over and the bill is decided one way or the other….”
It’s down! Bravo, all!
10
Is that the bitter taste of sour grapes I detect, Rumble Stiltskin? 😉 Methinks the Rumble in the tunnel is the big bad train of people power coming for YOU …
10
Rumble,
You better get off the tracks.
George
10
Rumble,
Ummm, but are you describing us, the CRU or the IPCC? I’d bet on us doing a better job than the CRU.
As soon as Jones and Mann decided the ends justified the means, they pretty much doomed everyone who jumped on their bandwagon.
As for references to Pilmer making money from his books, are you going to fork out ~$1200 USD at copenhagen to shake Al Gores Hand?
As for the previous arguments about the benefits of controlling C02 even if it is man made – it seems from my perspective that you’re talking about changing the environment to suit us because the supposed change is inconvenient? Isn’t that sort of like saying “well lets keep viewing the world as flat even though it has been proven to be a sphere, that way we won’t have to rewrite the textbooks”.
10
From the ABC:
“Climate Change Minister Penny Wong said the Government would not give up on the ETS and accused the Coalition of trying to spook voters.
‘When you cannot fight the argument you run a scare campaign’, she said.”
BWAHAHAHAHA!!! Now that’s what I can bizarre!
10
Rumble @101
Is it a train load of evidence of man-made induce climate change?
It must be an imaginary light, an imaginary track and an imaginary tunnel too.
10
co2isnotevil! Sorry, how could I forget about you?
Let’s see now, what can you contribute to the SuperNova Paranoid People Power Amateur Weather Network (henceforth known as the SPPPAWN)?
I know! Rain gauges. Yes, if we all club together we could buy a whole mess of those little plastic ones. Now, where the heck do you hang them to be sure those mad scientists can’t get at them and fiddle the findings. I know! We’ll lock them in the clubhouse safe with our abacuses and slide rules and only bring them out when it rains: then we can stand there and watch them like hawks to prevent tinkering. But how will we communicate our results to each other – hackers might get into the SPPPAWN computers. Carrier pigeons should do it. Anne-Kit, you’re in charge of the pigeon flock.
Real old-fashioned science – now we’re getting somewhere.
10
Congrats to you all. It’s nice to see a triumph of common sense over political correctness on occasion.
Jo, I stumbled upon your handbook yesterday and found it fascinating. I’m very open to the idea that the Earth is warming, but I’m always suspicious (skeptical?) of any UN-led effort. Thank you for your work here.
New Hampshire, USA
10
Question for you Rumble.
Whic is better? To take some measurments in a somewhat archaic manner and report the findings honestly, or to use the best and most expensive instruments in the armamentarium of science and then lie, manipulate, distort the data and suppress any dissent from your fabricated results.
I admit that some of the suggestions herein are a little naive, but it is a group of people who want to correct a corrupt situation. Your ad moninem attacks are very telling – and by the way, as long as you are back, you could answer my question earlier about what it is about the “conspiracy theory” we are all wildly drunk over that does actually NOT constitute a real consiparcy on the part of Jones, et. al. 1998 – present.
You throw out junk like “conspiracy theorists” and then refuse to follow up when challenged to justify such epithets.
Rather than name calling, why don’t you tell us all why the behaviour of Jones and cronies is acceptable science and ethical. We’ll listen if you have something to say which somehow explains that – something that Jones et al themselves have not been able to explain adequately.
10
Cover price of Heaven and Earth? $39.95 (paperback) and $49.95 (hardback).
Sales? He claims seven editions and 40,000-plus sales of the paperback.
Author gets 10% royalty for first 5,000 copies, rising to 12.5% then 15%.
So let’s do some sums.
Let’s say Plimer has reaped an average of 12.5% of the cover price for 40,000 paperbacks. That’s 40,000 times $40 (rounded up) that’s $1.6 million. SO 12.5% of that is $200,000.
Add in, say, 7,000 copies of the hardback at $50 is another $350,000, and 12.5% of that is $43,750.
So all up, the good professor of science fiction is looking at a cool $250,000 or so from book sales alone.
Add in corporate speaking gigs – he’s been busy in Europe and the US too don’t forget – at, say, $10,000 a pop and, what, 50 of those?
Another $500,000.
If he can keep stringing it out, as he no doubt will with the help of deluded souls like yourselves – he should reach the $1 million mark. Nice little addition to his superannuation really. Then the movie, the sequel, the doco-series. He’ll be as rich as Al Gore in no time.
Ah, but all of this is wild speculation: what do I know? I’m just a humble member of the SPPPAWN club.
10
Lord Christopher Monckton has released his report, “Climategate: Caught Green-Handed”, available here in PDF format, can be downloaded and saved.
Looks pretty thorough.
10
Rumble Mourdre: You’re not taking this very well are you? Take a few deep breaths, enrol in a Yoga class
10
Outstanding work, JoAnne! ETS is dead – this is a beacon for the rest of the world, and testimony to the work that bloggers like Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre and you do. Great job!
Cheers.
10
Rumble,
Glad to see that you got past denial and anger and are now into bargaining. Next comes depression and finally acceptance.
BTW, I’m more likely to design the rain gauge as a silicon chip nano machine which gets you barometric pressure, humidity, wind speed and direction as well, along with an unforgeable DH authentication chain to establish the authenticity of the stations results and prevent the kind of data tampering we have seen lately.
George
10
Oh miss Mourdre, you do make me titter. I too have enjoyed the various sites proffered by the protagonists your beloved notion of agw. one that spings to mind is George Monbiot`s apropos Hadley CRU, where to a bitch, your simpering friends bemoan, not the fact of the massive collective fraud cynicaly spoonfed to a gullible public, but the fact that Georgie boi a demigog of the mandarin class of agw hoaxsters should ~not rock the boat~ as oppossed to the quest for truth the users of this and other anti agw sites strive for. Laugh whilst you can missy. the boogey men are coming to get you truth molesters….Ha Ha Ha Ha
10
Lionell K Griffith: Post 77,
Thank you for the input Lionell! Sounds like a plan..I hope you take the time to put into details what you would consider as equipment, internet related, specs for housing the equipment, etc.,etc…And of course costs..The thing is we “all” have to be on the same wavelength so to say..
10
Moudre,
Hmmm…. $750,000, that’s about 625 shakes of Al Gores Hand.
Or what was cousin Als chargeout rate for his presentations? Something like 12k a minute or something at some point. That’s Al Gores presentation for just over an hour.
I do like your sense of humor.
10
Player (#115): “ETS is dead”
Complacency and over-confidence would be unwise. There’s still a long, long way to go in this fight, I’m afraid.
10
Please everyone. Don’t be distracted by the idiotic tangent of how much money Iain PLimer is reaping from his book. It is irrelevant to the question at hand. If that is the only thing Rumble can find as a factual complaint, just let it go. Nevermind making useless comparisons about how much the prophet of eco-hucksterism makes for appearances. Who the f@#* cares?
Let ’em rant. Rants indicate nothing more concrete is available
10
Rumble, you really are in over your head here. Anyone posting on this site can eat you for lunch on the science. You’re typical of the global warming believers — you can’t shoot the skeptics down with sound arguments or good science so you resort to name calling and character assassination. You embarrass yourself and your cause.
There is no one as blind as the man who can see but will not look. You should quit while you’re ahead.
10
Anne-Kit Littler: Post 98,
Thanks for the update..more great news! Talking about news, here’s the latest!!!
The Fraud is EVERYWHERE: Suny Albany and Queens University Belfast Join ClimateGate
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1338.last
The Climate Scandal Has Diverted Attention From The Climate Scandal
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1340.last
Why Scientists Lie-And What To Do About It!
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1344.last
10
Okay, if you’re all so darned right, you can stand back and read dispassionately the tenor of these randomly selected quotes from this page alone. It’s Conspiracy Central!
“We have won an important battle but the war rages on. The wannabe dictators of the world still want to be dictators of the world. Their tight grip on the press, academia, and too much of government remains. They have spent over a century getting to where they are.”
This is another step in the fight. Others things we need to do – get an audit of BOM and the CSIRO as I think we will find the corruption there may not be that different to Climategate.
People hate change, Al Gore and company knew this and exploited that fear of change by threatening them with massive climate changes
Although we should not forget the protagonists of the great global warming swindle almost have the world in their grasp
It never occurs to those driven by ideology and not facts that there is any chance that an international committee could have been corrupted, or that human socio-political processes could be distorted, or that scientists could have been human. The press just can’t see the wave of common sense coming (at long last) as politicians wake up to the global fraud.
The slow decades of brain washing is so complete that i spent weeks of evening research to remove doubt of the fraud.
I now think it is some form of mass (global) hysteria
The records kept by the Whaling Fleets of old, can also be mined for temperature and weather notes. Further back, the Dendochronolgy done by folks not afflicted with AGW are still valid
the panel that actually controls the IPCC has been in on the deception for a very long time
is it less of a bother to allow the AGW/Climate-change crowd control our every thought, word, and action based upon a pack of lies, distortions, and misrepresentations?
10
why, schucks, thank you kindly, miss Mourdre. I coudn`t have summed it up better my self. mwah
10
Well the first battle has been won with the voting down of the ETS earlier today and the enunciation by Abbott this morning that the Coalition policy will include a 5% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions with no ETS or carbon tax (all good) I can live with that).
The governments next move has me deeply concerned. Gillard, Wong and Combet just held a press conference and said they will reintroduce the same ETS bill with Coalition admendments when parliament sits again in February next year. There was something in the way Gillard kept on saying that the Liberals in calmess away from Canberra could change their minds. And then it hit me, the 2 Liberals standing this weekend are likely pro man made climate change. Kelly O’Dwyer in Higgins is an NAB executive and Paul Fletcher in Bradfield I heard on radio this morning that he knocked back a debate on the issue with an independent (most likely the Climate Skeptic Party) because he didn’t feel it was an important issue for his electorate).If these 2 win it is likely they are Turnbull supporters and maybe Labor are banking on Turnbull making a challenge. It would ruin the Liberal Party but I don’t think Turnbull would care. Below is an article written by Paul Fletcher today
10
Rumble,
Each of those statments you pulled from this list, even though taken out of context, contain a grain of truth. The problem for you, is that the behavior at CRU provides reinforcement for all of those claims.
I don’t really find a lot of the behavior revealed by the emails particularly unusual, as my perspective is coming from the private sector. Protecting intellectual property rights, disparaging the competition, using trickery to fudge specs and product claims, pushing the boundaries of what’s legal and what’s not are all every day occurrences in the corporate world. However, the techniques of corporations, who have profit motive obligations to share holders, are not appropriate here. The goal should not be maximizing the profits of a corporation, i.e., the researcher and their little empire, but minimizing the costs of climate change on society.
George
10
10
Hey Lionel – I agree – an independent grass roots movement of weather stations across Australia – be a lot more accurate than BOM and probaby a lot more widespread
Why the world needs the benefit of the doubt
http://www.twawki.com
10
Those are not examples of conspiracy theorists, in the vein of the Who Killed JFK crowd, or the bunch who are convinced that the governemtn (of your choice) is conducting biological warfare experiments in our undeground rail systems. that is what is meant by consipracy theorists.
We are simply venting some long pent up steam over an issue we KNEW was festering but lacked the excellent HARD FACTS, now provided by Long Fingers, to come out and say these things – in the absence of those facts you could ahve justifiably called us conspiracy theorists. As I said before – there just ain’t no theorizing about this any more. These are hard facts about a now-revealed, very real international conspiracy developed to fund a politcal movement. It isn’t much more complicated than that – we have the very words of the perpetrators themselves AND of their own computer programmers to support our conclusions. We are not speculating any longer. We are not conjecturing. We ar enot cobbling together snippets of probable facts. That is what conspiracy theorists ahve to work with. We have what we need to KNOW what we formerly theorized was going on.
Again, please tell us how what has been going on at CRU and its counterparts was NOT a conspiracy.
10
I recommend this video clip of an interview on the Colbert show with environmentalist Dan Esky about climategate. I found it revealing that no straight answers were given.
Dan_Esty
Watch him try to tap dance around the issues.
10
Rumble Mourdre:post 102
In this case where we are dealing with AGW apostles that would have to be a MODEL train and therefore nothing to fear.
10
ian plimer live on…2gb.comnow
10
I just finished reading Monkton’s report. I have been teaching a paeleoclimatologic interpretation of climate change for more than two decades. I ahve been closely monitoring all fo teh goings-on for the past several years and have been convinced that there was some real data manipulation going on. Even I am shocked and appalled by the scope and breadth of the CONSPIRACY.
There s just no other or polite way to sum this up other than to conclude that this is just a f@#*&#@ shame and an embarrasment to science and scientists of all stripes.
Pardon my typographical French, but when one is at a near loss for words, those very useful profanities sometimes say it best.
10
Tom,
I wouldn’t say that the nefarious nature of this was the intended effect, as in all these people got together in a room and conspired to commit fraud against the world, I think this was more of an accidental conspiracy of convenience. Many on the AGW bandwagon are there because they’re convinced that they’re doing the right thing. I think we’re witnessing the endgame of the TinkerBell effect.
George
10
George:
the ones who DID conspire are the few whom Monkton refers to as “The Team” as they referred to themselves. I know many people, one of whom just landed a well-paying US Govt job in the climate change office, who really believed what they had been told. For the average woman on the street who thought they were joingin a good cause, I have sympathy. For anyone with any scientific education at all, including my friend, I ahve no sympathy – they had access to the same data I have had over time but still decided to just blindly accept what they were told. As I said early, if you have the means and wherfewithal to prevent a crime and do nothing, you are in some way culpable for the damage done.
So, yes George, I agree with you to an extent. There were the main conspirators, there were complicit participants at the various agencies/organizations involved, there are members of the public who should and could have known better and there are the average people who have no means to know better. The involvement in true conspiracy ends pretty high up on that list.
Tom
10
Tuesday 2 dec 2009 front page of the Daily Express a major daily UK national newspaper. thats what I call good news!
10
Is this the A-TEAM referred to in some of the emails? I’ve scanned through the emails today. I can certainly confirm that there are many email addresses in the leaked emails that are also in my address book, although only a few that I have been engaged in significant exchanges with. I can certainky confirm Gavin’s complicity in blocking the truth from RC. I believe that my IP block is on the permanent ‘do not allow to post’ list at RC.
George
10
Also in the same paper.
Perhaps this is just the beginning!
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/143610
10
Um, I must be missing something here. You have worked yourselves into a real lather over one small group of scientists’ e-mails. I’ll have to get serious now.
First, for those of you who claim to be on the side of truth, justice and ethical behaviour – your rejoicing over a criminal act, a theft, a violation of privacy and an unethical publication is not simply hypocritical, it undermines everything you say you stand for.
Second, you have convinced yourselves, or have been convinced, that 1) all of these e-mails are genuine and have in no way been doctored 2) all of stolen the e-mails have been published.
Yet neither of those things has been established or confirmed, so far as I can tell, by the creators of the stolen material – it’s ten years worth of correspondence after all – but, hey, why hold back on a minor detail like that? You hold others to such high standards, yet you think it’s okay for you to leap to any old conclusion you like.
Third, you were already convinced that climate science was all a big con anyway, so all that remained was to nail the evidence and, bingo, you all thought you found it. You didn’t. You found a bunch of e-mails that in 99.9% of cases reveal not even a hint of global conspiracy, no fraud, no secret plot, no malpractice. But since you wanted to find a global conspiracy you found one.
0.01% of these emails are sigificant enough, at least on surface appearances, to raise questions of public interest about the conduct of the individuals concerned. Explanations are needed. But none of you writing here or reading this can possibly know what the answers are to those questions and what the actual explanations are. Yet you are speculating wildly, feeding off rumour and hearsay, putting the worst possible construction you can on everything you can, and extrapolating all of this from half a dozen people into a community of thousands of scientists from all countries and all fields whose research makes up climate science. That science, in turn, is based on centuries of study and research. Unless you’re claiming that the Newtons and Einsteins of this world were in on it too, which I wouldn’t put past you lot.
Scientific method remains and the fundamental principles of science are intact. Not one case of scientific fraud – and that is a very serious allegation – has been established in this case. I’m not saying it will or won’t, since I have an open mind on the issue, only that even if you are right you have jumped the gun so far you’ve shot yourselves in the rear end.
And even if some dodgy data sets emerge, some questionable graphs, some unreliable papers (and it would be really appreciated when you are shooting me down in flames if you could be quite specific about which ones you are sure are fatally compromised in a scientific sense) so what? Once you’ve weeded them out, there are literally tens of thousands of published scientific papers going back many decades that relate directly or indirectly to climate science.
I hate to be party-pooper guys and girls, but I’ve seen all this before with the tobacco industry and the Creationists. If there is a conspiracy, you’ve been duped into batting for the wrong side. Okay, now howl me down: in conspiracy world, if I’m not for you I’m against you, right?
10
Rumble,
“e-mails that in 99.9% of cases reveal not even a hint of…”
you see, there is the problem. My BS meter immediately goes whoop whoop.
Are you sure it’s not 99.98%? 98%. Are you counting the files, the threads or the individual mails.
It never ceases to amaze me how people on the backfoot suddenly start pulling figures out of their proverbial and word it like it was fact. Don’t you know some left winger might quote you?
You see now, there’s the problem. 99.9% you reco
10
Anna Bligh wants state based ETS anybody know if this is legal?
States may go it alone on ETS: BlighDecember 2, 2009 – 4:14PM
AAP
Queensland will rally the states to create their own emissions trading scheme (ETS) if a national scheme does not transpire, Premier Anna Bligh says.
The federal government will make a third attempt at getting Senate approval for its ETS when parliament resumes in February.
Ms Bligh said it was disappointing the legislation had again been rejected on Wednesday.
“I’m not going to give up on the idea that Australia will have a national emissions trading scheme,” she told reporters in Brisbane.
“It is theoretically possible for Queensland to go it alone. But frankly it would be a very poor trading market and unlikely to make any real difference.”
Ms Bligh said she hadn’t yet talked to other states about the possibility of a state-based scheme but would do so if the ETS did not succeed next year.
“If we see a continued failure at a national level it may be possible for a number of states to join together and develop a scheme that will contribute to Australia’s battle against climate change,” she said.
“It’s a sad day for this country. The failure of the federal parliament to adopt a scheme that would have seen us combat climate change is a blow for our environment and for our place in the world debate.”
10
No. You’re just wrong.
Still got no peer reviewed paper with empirical evidence?
Still believe that the IPCC is “evidence” and that a committee can’t be corrupted?
Still think that Nature or Science are journals of note, after they publish fraud and then wont issue corrections?
You’re the one who believes in committees, we believe in the transparent process of analyzing data and results from instruments and equipment without breaking laws of logic or reason.
Matrix Moment coming for you Rumble. I hope it doesn’t hurt too much.
10
Rumble,
We’re not saying climate science is a fraud, just that the illusion of a consensus based on irrefutable fact has been perpetuated through what appear to be unethical means. In the end, it will have been an insider who saw how climate science was conflicting with climate politics and wanted to be on the right side of history. Whistle blowers are generally shielded from criminal prosecution.
While it’s true that there are only a small number of individuals implicated, those that are seem to be the most revered AGW centric researchers around, upon which many of the IPCC conclusions and recommendations are based. Moreover, Holdren is also implicated in
this mess. I spent the day going through the emails and it’s not just a small sample. It’s a very large sample of hundreds of email threads(over 1K total with some duplicate files containing thread continuations that arrived later in time. While it appears to be selective, it used a relatively broad selection criteria and seems to have been produced as a series of queries to a content searcher which has effectively filtered out the mundane and personal correspondence. Between 1997 and 2004, there are about 2-3 threads per year. From 2005 on, there is an almost uniform distribution of about 2-3 threads per week up until late October. It seems like the kind of technology used by intelligence services to mine data for relevant content was applied. Either that, or someone knew exactly what they were looking for.
George
10
Correction I meant 2-3 threads per month fro 2005 to 2009. 2009 had the most threads, although they were collected over only about 10 months.
George
10
Rumble, sweetie, do you think for even a moment that if any of those leaked emails were fabricated by the whistleblowers – even a tiny itsy bitsy unimportant one – that we wouldn’t have heard about it by now from the implicated parties?
Not a peep. Nothing. Nil. Nada. Niente. Intet. Rien.
I rest my case.
10
Correction again, the 2-3 per week was right. Here is a sorted list of the thread time stamps and message subjects. As you can see, during the last few years, the samples have been well distributed and the sample spacing is quite small. It seems to be a more uniform sample set than say, most of the flawed temperature reconstructions driving IPCC conclusions.
http://www.palisad.com/co2/order.txt
George
10
Denny @ 118,
I will write a protocol for a minimalist first experiment. Might take me a day or so.
The goal is to develop a simple project consistent with rigorous science, have it documented, and use equipment we have on hand or easily and inexpensively available. I would expect a properly formatted paper would be a result. The work is to be on the fundamentals and is not expected to be revolutionary or published in a “peer” reviewed journal.
I have a block (25 meg) of unused web space available and could set up a web site to publish the data, the method, and the results. Perhaps we could set up a separate blog for capturing our conversations.
Imagine, science being done by a people who are not approved by any professional organization or certified by any government to be able to do it. Interestingly, this was how the industrial revolution was started and built.
The age of specialization began less than a hundred years ago (ca 1940). Before that time, a lot of ordinary people accomplished extraordinary things without being specialists in any particular thing except being observant, persistent, and highly goal oriented. They knew there had to be a better way and found it!
When you do science right, you get the right science.
10
This sounds noble, but forgive me for observing that it looks very much more as though you’re just playing the same old politics.
You say I “believe in committees” (now, now, Jo: you’re Alpha Girl here – that was a sly and unbecoming slap-down, no matter how ungracious I have been) yet you can have no idea what I believe. Error.
You refer to “laws” of logic and reason. Error. There are human laws (like the ones broken by those e-mail thieves, is that what you meant? Perhaps you mean you have faith in the concept of inductive logic and inductive reasoning – moving from a set of specific facts to a general conclusion, and explaining relationships between facts with a theory that has predictive power? Sounds a bit like . . . well, I daren’t mention it in present company.)
I note that you pointedly did not respond to my statement that “your rejoicing over a criminal act, a theft, a violation of privacy and an unethical publication is not simply hypocritical, it undermines everything you say you stand for”. (I’m sure you’ll have a quick one-liner ready but I hope it is not as shallow as co2isnotevil, whose crystal ball has already solved the crime and absolved the criminal. Logic and reason.)
Godwin Grech moment coming for you.
10
Congratulations Jo, and thankyou. I still can’t believe the duplicity of the mainstream media in burying Climategate. It looks like they are all complicit in the conspiracy. How could this happen? Also I notice that most of the fervent alarmists are politicians, financiers or accountants. Where are all the engineers and physicists?
10
Rumble,
If we are as you say we are, why do you bother?
What’s the point?
10
Anne-Kit,
No I do not think that the thieves fabricated material. I know damn sure they stole it becuase that’s one of the few things that has been confirmed on the public record as yet. I have no idea whether the thieves censored, added, subtracted or whatever else they did when they – as co2isnotevil infers – “filtered out” the correspondence for whatever their prupose was. My point is that neither do you – anything is possible. Likewise, if there was anything “really” juicy – the killer blow – we’d have heard nothing else but that by now. We haven’t. With an open mind, I rest my case, too.
10
Rumble,
I really don’t see anything worthy of prosecution from anyone here. Unethical, yes, probably on both sides. But. there can be no doubt it was an insider. The docs would have been easily accessible by many, but the email trails were from a deeper part of the syste,. It seems to be from some kind of email retention compliance storage system (like you really think deleting emails makes them go away …). In corporate environments, this kind of system is one of the more secure systems, both from a connectivity and physical access perspective. For one thing, it’s important to keep it secure from internal tampering. Given the forensic power of email trails, such systems are often put in place by companies for their own protection.
George
10
Lionell,
I guess I was hoping to get some instructive insights into why so many otherwise grown-up people are so amazed that science is conducted by humans, and are so willing to work so hard on such slim evidence to undermine and denigrate it for short-term political reasons. Instead I get:
.
And, as I said before, I am from the planet Gargoid and I’m simply here to mess with your head until the Mothership arrives and we take over.
10
Rumble
You still fail to produce any evidence of your favourite hypothesis. We can talk about the measurements and instruments to support our contentions. We understand what Argument from Authority is, but you don’t.
“your rejoicing over a criminal act, a theft, a violation of privacy and an unethical publication is not simply hypocritical, it undermines everything you say you stand for”.
Not even close.
These documents were all subject to FOI’s. They belong to the tax payers of the UK. If they were leaked, it’s a whisleblower who is protected under English law. If they were hacked, the hacker was merely providing what legally should have been in the public domain.
If phil jones et al, were doing their jobs they would have been happy to give up their info and have their results confirmed and the world more informed about climate science.
I haven’t seen any personal information in the leaks. No breach of privacy. This was all just work related information.
You defend criminally negligent fraudsters.
10
One small step for Man. One giant leap for Mankind.
Go you good thing go. Man you Aussies are awesome :).
Also by Lindzen: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html
Perhaps one of the greatest meteorologists, if not scientists, of our time.
10
I apologise again – this time for my ignorance of Argument from Authority. Let me see if I can untangle this ethical knot you’ve got yourself into.
Jo asserts that the hackers/thieves were whistleblowers with good intentions and therefore were either protected by law or the ends of their criminal act justified the means.
Jo does not and can not possibly know this – at least, not on any evidence that is available in the public realm – but Jo is authoritative.
Therefore, their crime was no crime at all.
Now I get it. Thanks for the lesson – the “laws of logic and reason” prevail again!
10
Rumble, I laughed, thanks. If you keep this up, people will think I pay you to be the mocking-boy when all the other folk who believe in AGW seem to have gone into hiding.
I’d love to be your one on one tutor for reason and sense, and help you untangle the logical knot you live in, but I suspect I’d have to be a neurosurgeon and even then it’s way beyond the capabilities of current medicine.
I don’t have an ethical knot, unless you think there’s something morally wrong with wanting transparency and honesty from paid workers about their job. Do you think hiding data helps humanity?
10
Yep… As Tom G(ologist) said in comments further up…. All the Thanks goes to the Brave and Courageous WHISTLEBLOWER who has literally blown the lid off the Climate debate and shown all of us the depths of corruption that the AGW proponents have sunk too.
10
No worries Jo – the pleasure’s mine. I’m here to help crazy people like you with laughter therapy.
The capacity to laugh at yourself seems sadly lacking in this debate, on both sides – except for on the planet Gargoid. Seriously though, I love transparency! I wake up every morning, look in the mirror and think – my god you’re transparent. But I’ll pass on the one-on-one thanks – I’m committed to my own neurosurgeon as strongly as I am to the belief that the climate conspiracy theory is the biggest load of illogical, unreasonable, unscientific, delusional and paranoid codswallop since Intelligent Design – and that’s saying something.
If you sense that all the people who “believe” in AGW have gone into hiding, ask yourself whether the humourless ordeal of dealing with conspiracy theorists might have something to do wit it.
You asked about my favourite hypothesis?
Well, here goes.
Our fate is to live in a very complex and dynamic climate system. It’s the devil to understand in detail. And for all your faith in instruments and measurements, I’m unconvinced that we understand it nearly well enough to say, like true Aussies: “No worries mate!” nor to say, like Hanrahan: “We’ll all be rooned”.
What do I believe? That when you have a system that is so complex and so imperfectly understood, neither Ian Plimer nor Hugh Jackman can possibly serve as a useful guide.
Six point five billion people digging up energy stored for millions of years and burning it in the open air over such a short time span must have the capacity to destablise that complex system. The planet has been there before and the result is utterly incompatible with the way we live now. I’m for prudence. I’m for proceeding with caution. I’m for teamwork. I’m for bright ideas. I’m for science. I’m not for arguing about why we got here, but for trying to work out what the heck we do next.
Move on people, move on. The train’s a-coming.
10
Rumble
Perhaps the team felt that excused their actions. Alarmists are quick to slander and accuse skeptical scientists of all manner of offenses without any evidence and yet cry foul when they incriminate themselves.
You must be feeling lonely as all of our usual warmers have gone AWOL, apart from he who must not be mentioned. Damien, Robin, Antelope wherefore art thou.
10
The more Rumble rambles, the more I understand why there are places for people like him/her.
10
I’d like to see Rumble try and condescend those chinese into burning a bit less coal? That trains a leavin.
10
Rumble,
but … why? The whole point skeptics like Professor Lindzen keep making is that there’s no evidence to suggest that the climate is highly sensitive to CO2 induced forcing. The only “evidence” they have is virtual.
Further the climate system is never stable, there is always some fluctuation in temperatures up and down on almost all time scales. So even if we were to stabilize CO2 at current levels that provides no guarantee for future temperatures. Climate changes. Deal with it!
10
Rumble: ” … must have …” gives it away. It’s a statement of faith, not science.
QED
10
I don’t feel lonely. I feel transparent.
Maybe you’re all by yourselves in this muggy little clubhouse for good reason. Think about it: you’ve been right into a great party and you suddenly realise that everyone else has gone home.
Which is my cue for an exit: it’s been fun, but I’m off to find some adults to play with.
Bye!
P.S Lionell – keep up the good work – may the SPPPAWN be with you!
10
Rumble
There are too many greedy avaricious humans stuffing up the planet but there is a solution.
There was a man, Soloth Sor, a man of vision who offered a solution. His answer was to return his country to a romanticized version of its past. He realized that the ruling class would resist change so he eliminated them.He realized that the intellectuals would resist his ideas so he eliminated them. He likewise destroyed the total infrastructure of his country as it was an anathema to his vision of an agrarian paradise. He still faced the problem of too large a population and starved many to death in his work camps.
I am sure that if we were to destroy our economies by massive taxation hikes and the radical reduction of our use of fossils fuels without recourse to viable alternate energy sources it would cause sufficient dislocation to allow like minded leaders to guide us on our way.
Oh and this will all be brought about cos of by a BIGG leftist conspiracy. If that is not extreme enough for you I can come up with some others. Damn my tin foil hat just fell off.
10
On the theory that you are telling the truth, you must possess advanced technology in order to have reached Earth undetected and presumably you now wish to go public. In order to impress the humans it would make logical sense that you would have the initiative to demonstrate some alien technology or reveal some powerful fact hitherto unknown by humans. Perhaps a new mathematical theorem would fit the bill, something that is easy to check once seen but not already published. Alternatively a prediction of a future event that humans are not currently able to predict (and such that it is relatively easy to calculate that the probability of a correct random guess is incredibly small). Next weeks lottery numbers would do nicely.
If you can achieve this simple demonstration or any other demonstration of equivalent difficulty then I will put my hand up to believe that you are indeed from the planet Gargoid and I will make a public declaration that my head has been messed with.
On the other hand, if you are unable to deliver on a challenge such as this (which would be easy for a true Gargoid, and very much in their interests to demonstrate), I will have no choice but to decide that you are not telling the truth and that you are a sad human whose limited comprehension is unable to accept recent events so has resorted to deception. This alternative theory already has ample evidence and requires no demonstration of extraordinary ability.
What is it I know about Godwin Grech? Hmmm…
* He worked for the government.
* He manufactured evidence.
* He attempted to mislead the public.
* When caught he offered no explanation why he would do such a thing and fell on his sword rather than implicate whoever put him up for it.
This does remind me of someone else. That’s right, the CRU team also manufactured evidence, misled the public, and now they have been caught they are all quiet like, not a word of explanation. By gum, we might have some basis for a theory here. Two cases are not enough, I’ll wait until a few more turn up in order to refine the classification.
I don’t rejoice over it. We have reached a miserable day for society, for science and for the spirit of free enquiry that took us out of the Dark Ages. I worry only about whether things will get better or worse from here and about what we can learn from the mistakes of the past. I have no doubt that people are looking very closely at the CRU email affair and carefully considering how to avoid getting caught next time round… and there will be a next time.
It should never have come to this… but it did come to this. This much I cannot deny, a group of people managed to masquerade as scientists, and lie to both the public and the scientific community, and they got away with it for a surprisingly long time. Politically they may still get away with it, depending on how people react over this issue.
There is a fundamental ethical problem in how an ethical person should deal with another who themselves refuses to accept equivalent ethics. From my personal point of view ethics is an agreement between individuals in the formation of a group. I agree to be ethical on the basis that when sufficiently large numbers of other people also agree to be ethical, then the formation of this group is of benefit to me and also of benefit to the other members. It makes no sense for me to be ethical all on my own, it only makes sense in the context of a social contract.
Consistent with this is the situation where some person withdraws their side of the contract and thus releases me of upholding my side of the contract then ethical behaviour on both sides is diminished. To avoid long tit-for-tat battles, and in the general interest of stability, I’m willing to give a little benefit of the doubt, but not too much benefit of the doubt because I don’t enjoy being exploited. I’m also willing to be tolerant of alternative points of view to the limits of where that tolerance threatens to destroy the things I hold dear, at that point further tolerance is non-viable.
It is of course greatly in my interests to be able to rapidly identify the people that I can have ethical dealings with, as distinct from the people who would lie to me, cheat me and destroy the ethical framework that I benefit from. The main challenge, from my perspective, is how to strengthen our ethical framework by making it easy and systematic to be able to identify such people, with the minimum opportunity for exploitation.
Our legal system is one such methodology, but it has some weaknesses, for starters it is very slow and very expensive. Worse, it has a habit of getting tangled into technicalities because reality is resistant to codification. Thus we have situations where a Greenie chains herself to a tree (illegal) or a conscious objector refuses to go to war (also illegal) and both of them break the law deliberately in order to prove their commitment to their protest.
The “court of public opinion” is another potential methodology for isolating desirable people from undesirable. This method also has some problems but it tends not to get tangled into technicalities, and it is cheap and brutally fast. It can be manipulated somewhat, but you can’t fool all the people all the time (so it is said).
That’s life, no clear cut answers. All the easy problems have been solved already.
10
Rumble,
You didn’t answer my questions in 151.
“If we are as you say we are, why do you bother?
What’s the point?”
I suspect the problem is that you cannot understand people who are SELF defined. We do not bow to the *sacred* other. We use our minds, our ability to observe, and our ability to think to determine what we know. Then, by that knowledge, we judge those who would be our *sacred* leaders who intend to be beyond question and doubt.
By our *sacred* leaders’ work product, we found them seriously lacking. By their own words, we find them fraudulent and in violation of the basic principles of logic and science. Some of us, my self included, find their behavior criminal, almost beyond measure. By their willingness to suborn the wholesale violation of human rights for a mere pittance of research grants or positions of power over others, they stand accused. They have no visible pretense of innocence beyond a gasping grasping “we meant well”.
You see, we look at actions and their consequences. When that does not match the words, we ignore the words as sound and fury signifying nothing. We know their intent was to crush us as they rob us blind. They did NOT mean us well.
Finally we have the travesty of you pretending to be a court jester trying to shock us into agreeing with you. You, who have not and cannot present ANY objective evidence that we are wrong and that the *sacred* “they” are right. You say you are transparent. I think you are confusing emptiness with transparency. Any actual content you may have once had, you have given it away on a Faustian Deal with false prophets. You thought you had an effortless win over reality. Think again. Reality has and will always have the last laugh.
10
Google who owns YouTube has shutdown the most linked video “Hide The Decline” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk
If you click on it you will get an error message.
SHAME on you Google !
Whilst there are other copies, most web sites link to this one.
The counter on it has stopped at about 300,000
10
No Will, when I click on it the video is still there. Local network problems for you perhaps?
10
D you know what just occurred to me. Only two senators took a view formed by their assessment of the science, versus the party line. Full credit to Senators Boyce and Troeth.
“But Senator Troeth, who along with Senator Sue Boyce voted for the ETS, has hit out at her leader, telling ABC1’s 7:30 Report that Mr Abbott’s choice of words are part of a scare campaign.
“That’s a very simplistic way of putting it,” she said.
“It’s also obviously designed to scare people and that’s largely what the anti-campaign has been – a scare campaign.”
She says all Australians are going to have to pay for climate change is some way.
But she says it was not easy going against her party in the Senate.
“It’s always a difficult decision to vote against your party line… but to me and many others this is a very important issue,” she said.
Senator Troeth says she was not tempted to waiver from her previous plan to cross the floor.
“Up until yesterday this was of course Coalition policy that we supported the Government’s position on the ETS,” she said.
“Having taken the decision to back the legislation, I saw no reason to change my mind.”
10
Rumble, you’re fun. You distract us from blogging serious issues. Even the Griffith got suct-in.
If Jo is not paying “…you to be the mocking-boy” I hope someone else is. (?)
See ya
-or not.
J PAK.
10
This is strange ! I can run the one below it but not the one on my post above.
(Post 170) Still an error message. I am just happy that it still works for others ?!. It has about 1900 comments. Quite interesting reading.
10
John @ 173,
Even when I get “suct-in”, I stay on message: reality is real, we can know it, and we damn well better know it because our lives depend upon it. Rumble simply offered me an opportunity of saying it in a different way. Even though he provided very low grade material to work with, I found a very high grade nugget to work with.
Ideas matter. Fundamental ideas matter the most.
10
MattB said….. “…Only two senators took a view formed by their assessment of the science…”
Well Matt, in light of the emails, manipulated code and corruption of the HadCRUT temperature History….
…. Considering that the Scientists involved, are the Key Players that the IPCC use as the “SCIENCE” on the issue of AGW… Could you please appraise us all of What that “SCIENCE” actually was that Senators Troeth and Boyce formed their View on?
10
I’m just saying J. there has been a lot said about people sticking up for free political speech, and only two people managed to vote in an unconstrained manner. I think they deserve credit. Only two people said it as they saw it, and I think they should be congratulated.
I think you are making too much of the CRU incident, and letting it cloud your assessment of some brave politicians.
10
Maybe I can summarize this:
If global temperatures had actually continued to increase over the course of the past 15 years; if the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets actually were decreasing in volume in recent decades which they are not; if alpine glaciers were actually disappering and not simply going through cyclic ablation; if the Arctic sea ice exetent had not rebounded following ’07-’08; if the Arctic had never been ice free at the North Pole in living memory (1980); if sea surface temperatures had actually increased in recent years; if the late 20th century increase of lower troposheric temperatures had actually been unprecedented in terms of magnitude and rate; if polar bear populations were actually on the decline instead of an increase in 16 of the 18 populations; if the Hockey Stick had not already been smashed on two different occasions; if the ice core data supported a conclusion that CO2 increases CAUSE temperature increases rather than the other way around which is what they tell us; if there was NOT a direct correlation between average solar incidence and cyclic global temperature variation and if there was more than an indirect correlation between atmospheric CO2 consentration and the late 20th century temperature increase; AND IF the global temperature data sets were truly independent of each other,
THEN…
the malfeasance, collusion, conspiracy and unethical behaviour of “The Team” would indeed be meaniningless – a “storm in a teacup.” Then, Rumble, I would agree, that we might be counting our proverbial chickens…
The world has been told that there is no IF in all of those scenarios – that those things are REAL, near the point of being irreversible and very likely catastrophic. Many of us knew by our own knowledge and research that some, and possibly all, of those pronouncements were simply NOT supported by hard data.
We now KNOW for certain that the small cadre of people who issued those many pronouncements of so-called facts were not only LYING, but that they CONSPIRED with each other to make sure they told the same stories.
So, I conclude that IF you want to continue to accept pronouncements which REAL data have shown to be incorrect, and IF you want to continue believing people who by their own words have been proven to be liars and frauds, then you have absolutely nothing to offer in a discussion centered on facts. You are an idealist with an agenda to whom facts must mean very little if anything at all.
IF you come back with facts, THEN we will listen. So far you have provided NONE.
10
MattB: “… Only two senators took a view formed by their assessment of the science, versus the party line.”
Senator Troeth (one of the two) in The Australian 2 December: “Earlier, Liberal senator Judith Troeth said her experiences in the bush and in farming had convinced her climate change was real.
“Droughts are longer. Rainfall has dropped,” she told the Senate.
“In short I believe there is global warming.”
(emphasis mine)
10
Even better AK… evidence trumps modelling every time does it not? Can you ask Tony for me when ID will be on the national curriculum:)
10
Tom G, a great piece of summation—something that should be required reading for all participants in the upcoming Copenhagen meeting well in advance of the meet.
Rumble is simply a lemming prototype of so many who were and are willing to follow—period. Sadly, there are many more followers in this world than there are leaders/thinkers, skeptics. Once an announced march on any front is made popular by, in the case of climate change in America, Al Gore for example, more and more fall in line. Ir could just as easily be over-riding concern for Michael Jackson or a ‘crisis’ situation in health care—once the groundwork is laid and the lemmings are lined up, without proper intervention the sea is the end game.
10
Matt, in all seriousness, you are not normally this dense. Judith Troeth’s lifetime experience (50 years max? Not sure of her age) of farming somewhere (i.e. one small farming community) in Australia has told her that, in that timespan, according to her memory, droughts have worsened and rainfall has declined, in that community.
Ergo: She believes in “climate change” (I must presume she means man-made).
That’s NOT the kind of evidence we demand here, and you know better than that. You do provide some light amusement, though.
10
Thank God that sanity is starting to make a comeback. The religious ecozealots are now seeing their corrupt actions being brought to light and they are being laid bare. It is so refreshing to see that so many people around the globe are pushing back against this blatant fraud and abuse of the scientific process.
Keep going, Australia! This American is lockstep with you and hopefully our conservatives over there will take a page from your actions!
10
“You do provide some light amusement, though.”… so what’s your excuse for turning up? cutting edge science lol! You are a parrot of denial who would not have a clue on the science if it came up and slapped you in the face… and that goes even if Jo and Co are right. a political hack parrot sorry no offence.
10
Just out of interest AK where is the science, since you are so rational, that makes you against woman’s right to choose, and gay equality.
10
What?? You’d better get some sleep, Matt, you’re starting to get whiny. It must be past your bedtime. Come back and talk to us when you’re not so wet behind the ears.
10
Whoop, whoop, whoop!!! Irrelevancy meter pegged.
10
I apologize humbly for America. The natives here made a mistake and allowed Illegal immigrants from europe. It went downhill from there.
We also didn’t learn from our native brothers. They did rain dances and other exercises to attempt to create climate change. Now we are still dancing and think taxes will create climate change. We have not made any progress. Why are we still dancing and calling on spirits to change the climate???
Do you have a favorite dance Rumble Mourde? Does it require a massive amount of spinning?
10
Tom G your post was a post too soon I think having read 188:)
10
Neil Frandsen: Post 101,
Neil, thanks for a great comment! Welcome also!!! Can you or do you know of any acess on the Internet towards these documents??? I’m interested as I’m sure a few others here are..If you could post these links here that would be great. Hope you visit regularly…As you can see the last couple of weeks have been a whirlwind of information on ClimateGate!
10
When Rumble first appeared I was tempted to tear into him myself. But I didn’t, not because he didn’t need to be confronted, but because I feared it would simply stroke his ego and encourage him. In the end it looks like that’s exactly what happened.
I may be unpopular with some for this opinion and I know it. But the best thing probably was to ignore him completely. In the end I couldn’t resist the temptation myself and I now regret it.
He was a provocateur with a dishonest intent.
Finding Joanne Nova was just plain good luck for me. I’ve learned a lot from her and from many of you. For a skeptic who isn’t a climate scientist of any kind Jo’s site and junkscience.com are the two best possible sources. I was an engineering major before I discovered computer science and software engineering. And the math, physics and general science training I had have enabled me to understand what you all have been saying and learn from it.
So now let’s keep our eye squarely where it needs to be — CO2 isn’t causing any harm and isn’t about to, CRU and others cooked up a story for their own reasons (antithetical to the interest of the human race), so of course, had to hide their operation. Climate research is an important matter to study. But the CO2 thing is our problem. The essential message of Climategate is that the assertion that CO2 would destroy the world was falsified from the beginning.
How do we get the message to the public before it’s too late? Resistance to emissions trading has begun because people are realizing what it will do to them. So we may have a window of opportunity and need to try to take advantage of it.
10
JS: Post 131,
JS, I have not found any “Good” rebutal from the Alarmists so far..I’ve seen three and yours would be the fourth. They keep repeating themselves and stating all the “other” scare statements all Alarmists use…You want to annoy a Alarmist? Just use “Facts and Logic”! 🙂
Do you know what the Alarmist use as a base Theory of Temperature?? They use “The AGW Uncertainly Principle of Temperature (UPOT). Ice can melt at any Temperature They want it to melt at!!! 🙂
10
Roy @ 191,
Rumble has no ego. One must have a self to have an ego. He give that up a long long time ago. He gets his marching orders from postmodern philosophy and his *sacred* others. There is no there, there. Because of that, there is nothing to “tear into”.
Trolls are sometimes good foils to make important points. The glow they get out of it is irrelevant and very short lived.
10
Neil’s comments about the US NWS keeping ALL original weather data they get their hands on are, or at least were, correct. During my day in the USAF Air Weather Service (a LONG time ago), ALL original documents were sent to them. I know they were processed because once in a great while they would return errors found during QC. I know for a fact that in the late 60’s they were bursting at the seams with 23 warehouses full of “original” weather documents.
I also sent them (indirectly) all observations of any kind I collected from any source (I was for several years with the USAF world weather collection center — the AWN) all of which I understood were turned over to them after processing by our Climo center. These were NOT original records.
I read somewhere — I don’t remember the source — that they now only keep original documents for five years, but I can’t vouch for that. Original documents would surely only be available to them for US originated reports.
Some data can be downloaded, and tons of it can be purchased at low prices on CD/DVDs. Poke around the NOAA web site. This may be a good place to start: “http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/EnvironmentalData.html” and see if you can’t find what you want. (The link previewed OK – I hope the preview is correct! I had to tinker to get it to show??)
I purchased a DVD with the world’s 2008 Surface observations and once unzipped it contained 13,400 station files with more than 23 gigabytes of data. So be prepared for an eye opener.
Has the original data here been altered? I have no way of checking (QC info is included w/each observation) but I have no evidence that alterations have been made.
The first file is for Jan Mayan Island, Norway, and contains 24 Synoptic Observations per day for 2008, with the exception of (as I remember) 14 that are missing. That means that this one station took 8770 observations that year. By the way, I don’t see any COOP stations on the CD, but I may have just missed them.
Of course most of the temperatures are probably “contaminated” with UHI. But if I remember correctly, many of the CHN stations are too, but they “manage” to “correct” that flaw. Hmmm. 13,400 stations reporting temperatures.
10
Tom; 51; Suggested name of the file releaser by a WUWT poster was “Cool Climate”.
10
This admiring Kiwi has to say it…Aussie leads the world again !
If an election is fought on this issue, Tony Abbott will slay the AGW dragon for good. With the dragon dead then green left hypocrisy will die with it.
Tony Abbott, Steve Fielding…cometh the hour, cometh the men.
10
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: [email protected]
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! )
10
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark
http://www.cphpost.dk/news/national/88-national/47643-denmark-rife-with-co2-fraud.html
Or as Will Shakespeare puts it….
Horatio:He waxes desperate with imagination.
Marcellus:Let’s follow. ‘Tis not fit thus to obey him.
Horatio:Have after. To what issue will this come?
Marcellus: Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
Horatio: Heaven will direct it.
Marcellus: Nay, let’s follow him. [Exeunt.]
Hamlet Act 1, scene 4, 87–91
10
Posting a comment from the the U.S. of A.
All I can say is “Good onya!”
There is *lots more* work to do, not only in your neck of the woods, but world wide.
In fact, one of the major things that needs to happen, with extreme urgency, is a complete and thorough audit and investigation of the United Nations IPCC. I whole-heartedly believe that it will make the “Oil for Food” scandal look like a picnic!
10
Rod Smith: Post 194,
Rod, thanks for the info…I’m sure the quality issue is a major concern…yes, 23 Megabytes is a lot! I would only do it only if were “raw” data….
10
Thank you Tony Abbott! I saw another side of Abbott after becoming the leader of the Liberal Party. At last, a politican with “balls”. I was begining to think there was no longer any such thing.
Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong are two show ponies without any substance. Their ETS is nothing more than a self indulgence and a huge TAX ON EVERYTHING and nobody has convinced me, that it will make any difference to the climate.
It is also encouraging to read this forum and see so many people on the other side of the world, agreeing that this climate change is a load of BS, created by politicians to serve their own interests.
My message to Rudd and the rest of the limp wristed politicians around the world, if you want my vote, “give me undisputed scientific proof, that man is causing global warming”.
10
After the (British) Mail on Sunday now also The Independent has come out with an article about the possible involvement of the Russian Secret Services in the computer hack. See http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/was-russian-secret-service-behind-leak-of-climatechange-emails-1835502.html
10
Hi Arie,
As a general rule of thumb, it’s a good idea to release hacked information on another countries’ server.
Of course, I think we should do everything we can to protect the source (whoever that may have been)… So, yeah, it must’ve been the russians….
10
Actually, I reckon it was the cubans…
10
Oh, Morano sent his underlings to Tomsk, in the heart of Siberia, to cover his traces? Doesn’t make sense to me. The Russians are compromising bedfellows. Why didn’t he send them to a West European country with a more agreeable atmosphere and without sinister associations ?
Let me make a prediction. Those who celebrated too early about the “scam of the century” (Malkin) will end up with a good quantity of egg on their faces.
10
Arie, explain to me again, how if the Russians did steal something, that that means the world really is warming from co2? Still got no evidence.
It wouldn’t matter if Hitler came back from the dead and released those documents, that doesn’t change what’s in them.
It is however just another blatant attempt to draw attention away from the >big crime.
10
My prediction: Those who acted as apologists for fraud will be too embarrassed to admit it ten years from now.
10
The boot is on the other foot, Jo. How do these documents explain that the world is NOT warming from CO2 ?
10
Unfortunately, Arie, showing that Co2 is causing global warming your problem.
10
You need to work a little harder at this then that Arie. I am sure that nobody here has made the case that these documents PROVE that CO2 is not causing global warming. But what we are saying is that these documents prove that the theory that CO2 is that cause is based on a bunch of twisted programming resting on top of a pile of skunked up data surrounded by a coven of paranoids.
We are not here to prove a negative, it’s your theory, you prove it! Up to now you haven’t come close to doing so. But by all means keep trying.
10
ClimateGate:
These documents prove that some scientists are frauds
These documents prove that the IPCC promotes those frauds, and defends them when they are exposed.
These documents prove that scientific journals can’t pick up fraud, but promote it, and won’t correct it when it is exposed.
Basically, like I said before. Science is broken.
We’ve looked at the evidence from non-frauds. We’ve shown evidence their models are wrong. We’ve asked for empirical evidence, but there is none.
Hundreds of studies show carbon has little effect.
10
You people have been spinning this matter for dear life, apparently in a great hurry to get your misinterpretations in before the stuff could be studied by cooler heads.
Here is the analysis of the Union of Concerned Scientists:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html
You will of course dismiss this as you also dismissed, in another thread, the articles in Science and Nature basically supporting the CRU scientists. Your argument was that these prestigious journals were fraudulent and had lost all credibility.
But if it comes to a contest between the trustworthiness of your blog and these journals you don’t stand much of a chance of course outside your particular audience.
It will take some time but ultimately the Union of Concerned Scientists’ version will prevail and you will all look rather silly.
10
Arie,
Just FYI – and I have no idea if there is any validity to this, but in an interview in the US, there was mention of another 100MB of information from this hack that has yet to be released.
It was just a side comment from someone during a rather heated discussion.
I think what you’re missing here is the fact that the whole AGW theory pitch to the general public was heavily reliant on Manns hockey stick. Where a lot of the science was saying we think this or we think that, the politicians got involved and started say “we now know this” and “we now know that”.
The result has been a massive beatup and as the CRU hack confirms, the politicisation of science. This is something that concerns me greatly, and I’d bet it concerns the scientific community in general greatly too.
A Lot of people have gotten very wealthy off the AGW theory to date – and I’m not talking necessarily about the scientists, I am talking about people like Manbearpig, and this is even before we get some ex Enron/Lehman brothers people involved in an ETS!
Compounding all of this has been the fact that Mainstream media has ignored this issue almost entirely in many countries across the world. Maybe this was the swansong for the mainstream media? Who knows, I think they’ll be around a bit longer yet. What I do reckon is that if they continue to ignore such big stories, the public will eventually ditch them as a source of information.
This is why this is a scandal of epic proportions, and like it or not, this scandal is going to continue rolling on for a long long time.
Of course, over the years, all the sceptics have ever asked for it a balanced debate with access to the data. This, to my mind has never happenned – or at least not in the public arena.
10
Let’s think about this another way, as Roy Spencer’s wife so astutely noted.
Suppose that, instead of cliamte science, the leaked e-mails had revealed that an internationally cooperationg group of researchers into carcer treatment had been colluding to prevent publication of alternative findings, had been fudging graphs of cancer statistics, manipulating the data, excluding researchers from the conferences……. and all the other shenanigans which have been revealed.
Do I even NEED to paint the mental scenario for you? Why, then, do we have such back-sliding, spinning, covering each others’ asses, by people not directly implicated? Is it because we view people’s health with such concern but don’t give two shits about promising away their money?
Just answer – why the double standard?
10
Tom G: Just answer – why the double standard?
Its simple. If they didn’t have double standards, they would not have any standards at all. Remember, this is a post modern philosophy world where anything goes as long as you can get away with it. All that is required is to say the *sacred* words often enough and loud enough. Rather like ancient magical incantations and prayers to the gods. If that doesn’t work, you burn the witches that are against you or that you even suspect are against you. Oh, sorry, wrong century. This is the 21st century were you don’t burn witches, you simply silence them so their words cannot overpower your words.
Its not about the science and it never has been about the science. Science was just a cover story for the largest power grab and theft of wealth in human history. Rather like eating the goose that lays golden eggs.
Ideas matter. Fundamental ideas matter most. Work to get them right as if your life depends upon it BECAUSE it does.
10
Lionell:
So true – but that is “The Team” the people who are in it for their own gain – screw the rest of the world and all that. The people I am addressing are the parrots who show up at sites such as this and inject nonsense they don’t really understand into conversations. They range from plain people who have been hoodwinked to scientists who have been seduced by hype and money into thinking that their own research is indeed good and contributiong to overall understanding of how the Earth would have been so much better off if people had never evolved.
Can I quote Blazing Saddles here?
“What did you expect? Welcome sonny? You’ve got to remember, these are simple people. People of the land. You know. Morons.”
“Someone with supposed credibility (Gore) siad it. I believe it. End of Story” types. Eco-religious zealots. Those are the ones I am asking the question of – Maybe – just maybe, they might,… mioght pause long enough to answer their won question of whether the COULD answer mine. That’s all I hope to gain. If we can make people who have had a head-down, full steam ahead attitude at least pause, there’s hope. I want to make them experience an Oliver Cromwell thought:
“I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.”
10
Tom G.,
The parrots, as you call them, are as guilty as “the team”. There is a level of evasion and willful ignorance that is way beyond innocent error. They reached that level a long time ago.
The evidence is available and easily understandable. You don’t have to understand advanced theoretical physics to understand the SUN is our primary source of heat. You also don’t have to have an advanced degree in chemistry to understand that a trace of a trace of a component of the atmosphere cannot possibly overwhelm the atmosphere. These two facts are more than sufficient to bring the entire human caused global warming climate change hypothesis into full question.
The parrots willfully gave up responsibility for the content of their minds a long time ago. They have in effect said “who am I to know what it takes to live?” and have granted that power to others. That is the same as saying “who am I to live?” As a consequence, they don’t want anyone else to live either.
If you are not self defined, you have no self.
10
Madjak wrote:”I think what you’re missing here is the fact that the whole AGW theory pitch to the general public was heavily reliant on Manns hockey stick”
Oh, Mann’s hockey stick. It keeps bobbing up like King Charles’s head in the conversation of Mr.Dick (remember Dickens’ David Copperfield ?).
Why is the hockey stick always identified with Mann? In the original paper about it he was only one of three co-authors. You never hear of the other ones. Moreover the hockey stick has been presented on at least a dozen other occasions by different authors using other proxies. Richard Littlemore has given a good overview of them : see http://www.desmogblog.com/this-is-not-a-hockey-stick But among sceptics you hardly ever hear of any of them. No, it is Mann’s hockey stick, Mann’s hockey stick.
I believe that we are dealing here with a definite PR tactic, that, in this case, was initiated on the Canadian blog ClimateAudit, and has been very successful. The tactic is: identify a cause with one particular person and demonise him, up hill and down dale, as much as you can (it is also an established technique in psychological warfare – it was tried on Churchill, without much success).
ClimateAudit has played a particularly suspect role in this. After the first objections of McIntyre and McKitrick to the original paper by Mann et al.it was intensified in the malign misrepresentation of the NAS and Wegman reports. I have written at greater length about this here:
http://desmogblog.com/review-michael-manns-exoneration
10
Come on Arie, you know this is about more than just hockey sticks. It’s about an attitude, reflected by a group of researchers (the cabal), which has actively disrupted fair scientific discourse. It’s about the tainted research produced by this cabal being the main reason why the world is on the verge of committing untold trillions of dollars to ‘correct’ the damage the cabal believes mankind has done. It’s about the heavy handed suppression of thoughts, ideas, theories and data that are in conflict with the cabal’s agenda. As far as I’m concerned, confirmation that this specific hockey stick is bogus, while interesting, is inconsequential. Besides, I already knew it was bogus.
10
Wow there is a neutral site with absolutely no propaganda!
I am sure I can trust anything they say…….
By god do you wear polarized glasses all the time???? the warmies have mastered the demonizing. A bit of fair play? would that make you happier? Why don’t you and your friends start by banning the term denial and all its variations from every pro warming site or blog. Then as a gesture of good faith I’ll work on getting all the “cooler heads” to stop picking on poor Mr. Mann
10
Arie,
Are we getting tired of hearing about it? Well I can’t help you with that one. It is only suffice to say that I got tired of seeing it when it was the flagship evidence in the AGW propoganda campaign, so I can sympathize with you on that one.
The political reality is that we’re all going to be hearing much more about the Hockey stick.
And your evidence for this is? Please enlighten me?
It’s not just one person. Climategate is showing collusion across many people within the CRU. I am assuming you’re talking about Phil Jones here. Leadership is about taking responsibility, remember? Or is that just an outmoded thought these days?
10
No, I don’t know of any ‘cabal’ and I have always been surprised by sceptics’ readiness to believe in it.If you think there is evidence of such collusion in the stolen emails (not to use that ridiculous term ‘climategate’) you should point it out to me.
Madjak you insist on staying on the Mann-trail. I note that you ignored my point about the existence of at least twelve similar graphs presented by different authors working with different proxies.
The hooha about Mann was started by McIntyre and McKitrick and the former went on with setting up the blog ClimateAudit which has been Mann and hocckey stick obsessed.
10
Arie, just as soon as meteorologists can predict our weather 3-4 days out with complete certainty, I will believe we have begun to grasp the many complicated nuances affecting global climate. I find it amusing that we humans are so quick to claim accurate knowledge on a host of subjects, only to find that even without trickery and confounded purposes, our understanding continues to be refined and oftentimes greatly modified over time.
Aside from all the rhetoric on the subject of whether greenhouse gases are a major source of climate change, the mere fact that the science is NOT absolute is reason enough to do a better job of garnering understanding before acting—hopefully without trickery and confounded purpose. To imagine that anything the size of the proposed changes should be anchored to the future direction of humanity without a much better grasp of the facts is unthinkable and absurd.
10
They can’t predict the weather but they can predict that summer will be from about December to April (at least in the Southern hemisphere). That is the difference between weather and climate.
In studying climate one works with long term regularities – not day to day variability.
I, for one, am convinced that the science is solid enough to take out an ‘insurance policy’.
10
Arie,
I can see some major problems with the “Insurance policy” argument. Would you take an insurance policy out on your house to cover you for a supernova event with the sun? What if the premium was $1200 per annum?
10
I do take out flood insurance on a couple of business locations along the Mississippi River that are potentially susceptible to loss year-to-year, although I have other facilities that are also on the river but not in the flood plain. Such are the vagaries of weather from one year to the next and how we are treated geographically regarding the weather. Imagining any kind of global policy that managed vagaries with skill—well, one cannot imagine. Frankly, if there are real long-term climate changes in our future regardless of their origins, the insurance industry will create coverages that will offer those in risk financial coverage while making the insurance companies very good money—most of the time.
10
[…] Australia has served as an advance battleground for imposition of the cap-and-trade power grab, where Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's government now hinges on a possible second vote on the scheme, held up after a party looking to find bipartisanship experienced revolt and stiffened its spine. […]
10
[…] one, how many of the homeless and poor are unnecessarily dying from the cold. And all because of Government’s and green groups gravy train that ignores their plight focusing instead on their rabid push of global warming […]
10