JoNova

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



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



The tipping point tipped

Did I say things were changing? The latest Rassmussen poll shows that the knowledge of falsified data is spreading fast and the polls are collapsing. Nearly 60% of Americans are now suspicious that there has been some falsification of the data.

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s Very Likely. Just 26% say it’s not very or not at all likely that some scientists falsified data.

Only a quarter of US citizens think that scientists agree on the climate. (Possibly just the White House and it’s employees? Only a few days ago a spokesman for the Obama Government was still insisting that he didn’t think the science was “under dispute”.)

How fast that news spreads… or possibly not. (After all, before Climategate, how many polling companies thought to ask a question about scientists falsifying data?)

This skepticism does not appear to be the result of the recent disclosure of e-mails confirming such data falsification as part of the so-called “Climategate” scandal. Just 20% of Americans say they’ve followed news reports about those e-mails Very Closely, while another 29% have followed them Somewhat Closely.

Just 20%? So only 60 million people have been following the “ClimateGate” scandal very closely? And another 87 million (or so) have been following it “Somewhat closely”. The problem is you don’t even have to follow this “Somewhat closely” to get the idea that people are breaking rules, and behaving dishonestly. All you need to hear is “climatologists, hide the decline” from the guy beside you on the bus.

The media may not be pushing this story (or even disclosing it in some cases), but they don’t have to for the rest of the world to hear it. Paltry efforts like Google keeping “ClimateGate” off it’s autosuggestion list might slow this train wreck by a day or two. But since Al Gore is on the advisory board of Google, that dubious action may just help fuel the fires and work to spread the news.

The BBC even has to admit that the emails might just have an effect on Copenhagen. But Richard Black makes sure he puts in the obligatory caveat quote from the Imaginary Global Spokesman for Science.

Scientists say the e-mails from the University of East Anglia do not alter the picture of man-made warming.

No. The emails don’t alter the picture at all, they just remove the thick frosted glass that was obscuring it. Now the “picture” of man-made warming can be brought into a sharper focus, but the details are damning.

Black refers to climate sceptics in quotation marks. It’s as if there is no such thing as a real climate skeptic. Given that the search to understand our planetary atmosphere is kind of complicated, a real skeptic would only seem like an impossible contradiction if you religiously believed there was only one truth in the forest of theories.

Meanwhile Gore has cancelled his big “rock star” extravaganza for 3000 people in Copenhagen. The people booing and hissing from the sidelines in recent days could be making it harder to be convincing in the role of the Prophet of Doom.

Which brings us back to the UN. Is ClimateGate rubbing off the shine from the UN? It’s impossible to know from this report. But in the Rassmussen poll, 15% of the respondants described the UN, not as ineffective, or inept or even corrupt, but as an enemy.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.5/10 (2 votes cast)
The tipping point tipped, 5.5 out of 10 based on 2 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/2eoh9bz

71 comments to The tipping point tipped

  • #
    P Gosselin

    Climategate certainly has made an impact on public sentiment. I wonder if the impact will be big and enduring enough. Are there another 150 MB of data not yet released? What’s the scoop on that?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    bill-tb

    And not one lamestream American TV channel has covered it, save for Fox News. It’s a huge news scandal as well.

    P Gosselin: I believe the whole of the leaked file I have downloaded is near 200 mb, the emails were 60 or so. The rest was code and other files associated with the fraud. It looks to be all assembled at the behest of a FOI. from whom, not yet known.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Despairing

    We owe a huge, huge debt to the leaker/hacker.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    “15% of the respondants described the UN … as an enemy”

    That is truly staggering!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Despairing (#3)… Yes. I wonder whether the whistle-blower(s) had any idea, when they released that stuff, of the sort of impact it would have.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Despairing

    Here is a quick weasel word semantic hunt of the BBC article/report http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8392611.stm

    “Scientists say” (carefully separated from the names, gives an all-inclusive feel)
    “the unversity’s Climatic Research Unit and their peers around the world” (implication, thousands of other scientists)
    “Climate ‘sceptics’ have claimed” (all sceptics are fakes)
    “To some long-time observers of the UN negotiations” (no names, no pack drill)
    “A spokeswoman for the European Commission” (no names, no pack drill)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    P Gosselin (#1):

    “Public sentiment” is right. The AGW brigade have been appealing to the emotions – fear, guilt, self-righteousness, etc. Efforts over the years to counter that with logic and rationality have not been all that successful, except with that small section of the population who are predelicted that way. After Climategate, the case against the “increasing atmospheric CO2 causes catastrophic global warming” hypothesis is only marginally stronger, if at all. The truth about that has been plain to see for many moons, and it didn’t take Climatgate to show that. But now, we see that the appeal to the emotions – betrayal, justice, indignation, etc, is what is making a difference.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    amortiser

    I attended a Medical Centre Christmas Party last light and the conversation gravitated to global warming and the ETS. None of the people in that conversation had heard of the leaked data from the CRU. All were, however, much opposed to the proposed ETS.

    I’m still trying to figure out why this is being deliberately blacked out by the media. There are 2 by elections in Higgins and Bradfield this weekend.

    When these are over this story might get a run. It’s no good confusing the voters with such distractions at such an important time.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sean

    I’m one of those that went from an opinion that the UN was an inept bloated beaurocracy to something much more devious when the details of the Copenhagen treaty got to be known. Its a bait and switch con job on a global scale to create a UN global governement. I don’t know about you Aussies but from my perspective in the US I feel that not only has the IPCC outlived its usefulness, so has the entire UN.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Henry chance

    Has AGW advocate Roin Grant gone walkabout?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ben

    I agree with apparently a not insignificant fraction of the US population it appears, I reached the conclusion that the united Nothing-doers had outlived their usefulness after reading ‘We Did Nothing’ by Linda Poleman.
    In Norway we’re really not hearing anything about the leaked e-mails; hardly surprising though since the Storting in Norway makes a tidy profit on carbon taxes imposed on fuels, is able to limit to some extent the mobility of it’s population (which would be easy anyway since many are quite insular by their very nature) and stands to benefit enormously by firstly convincing major European states that switching to natural gas (imported in part from Norway) in lieu of indiginous coal for electricty generation and secondly, if CCS is ever accepted on a wide scale, by charging neighbouring nations a fee to helpfully sweep their captured carbon dioxide under the rug as it were. And since the media is mainly represented by government institutions, one shouldn’t be too surprised.
    It’s actually frustrating to read any of the feeble coverage this bombshell warrants in the press, accompanied by the usual ad-nauseum remarks about the concensus agreeing that it’s all actually worse than we thought.
    Reminds me of the time my meteorology professor was cut off in the beginning of a radio interview about the Greenhouse Affect as it was known then, since he indicated immediately that the myth had no plausible substance.
    As for the trustworthiness of the IPCC, when I saw ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ on a QANTAS flight, and then sat through the ABC back-pedalling that followed, David Karoly (the IPCC beneficiary on the expert panel assembled) managed to irritate me as only a petulant spoiled child is able to while in the throes of tantrum for not getting his way.
    So when will anyone bring a poll to me and ask my opinion? I have plenty to say about this hot-air affect myth and it’s champions…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    dave

    P Gosselin: & bill-tb: The complete FOIA folder is 157Mb of which 7.64Mb is emails, & the rest other files and documents.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Ben,

    I remember that witch hunt on the ABC after ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’. If I remember correctly the only whole they could punch in it was an incomplete graph which was completed later. Ohh, if only they knew then what we know now.

    The Myopic grandstanding of the “mediator” was the most pathetic and disgusting demonstration of myopic, ill informed and biased mediation I have seen in my life. It wasn’t a debate at all, the “sceptics” hardly had a chance to speak at all.

    What was the name of the mediator again? I would like to remember their name.

    Honestly, it just about made me puke up my dinner, it was that bad.

    Also, I seem to remember seeing on 60 minutes later on the Prime Minister of Australia – Kevin Rudd – corrected by a reporter in an interview when he spouted one of Al Gores lines about the last 10 years have been the hottest in the world….. I couldn’t believe that the PM of australia was obviously taking advice from an Inconvenient truth. Truly scary. Maybe he takes Economic advice from Ken Lay?

    We never have had a debate over here, what we have had is a massive propoganda campaign. I know enough about propoganda to know the saying “Don’t down my back and tell me it’s raining”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    amortiser

    It was Tony Jones.

    The ABC today was made a reference to the leaked emails in a report on Hansen trashing the Copenhagen Conference. In addition there was a reference to Obama’s climate czar, Holdren making an appearance in the emails. There was no elaboration however.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    There is such a very large number of reputations, egos and careers resting upon the global warming myth that I find it difficult to see how they can ALL back down and say ‘I was wrong’ (h/t Icecap). The media seem to be particularly sensitive here when I would have thought that they would be the ones to change quickest. Ah me!!! The point for them is that the longer one delays the inevitable the more difficult it becomes to let it go and the more irrational they get – I know, I have been there!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Bad syntax in that last sentence! – sorry


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Stuart,

    So we’re all going to pay ridiculous amounts of money to resolve a problem that doesn’t exist because some egos will get bruised?

    I really don’t give a rats clacker about politicians Egos. Politics is a nasty business and if you’re afraid of your ego getting bruised, become a petrol station attendant instead.

    The thing with so many people being misled, is that if some leader fronted up and said look, I have been misled because of X and Y and the ABC, once the people understand this, surely much of the response would be something along the lines of “Fair enough, I was too, bloody Tony Jones…”.

    Surely it comes down to the pitch – or am I being too naive here?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I completely agree with you Jak! I don’t give a rat’s wosname either. I think that the reason they are unable to move on the issue is not one of facts but one of psychology – egos etc., etc… Or, you could say they have a belief system going which they find hard to give up. This is not an excuse – it is a reason. Trillions of dollars for egos – a good slogan!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rod Smith

    I wrote Senator Nelson (D-Fl) a letter last month essentially urging a full investigation of all US facets of ClimateGate. On December 1st I got a reply containing no mention of ClimateGate but with the following key paragraph:

    “Global warming threatens Florida’s fragile ecosystem and $65 billion tourism industry. Rising sea levels will encroach on Florida’s pristine beaches and harm coastal wetlands and the Everglades. Increased carbon dioxide and water temperatures will damage sensitive coral reefs and endanger Florida’s diverse marine species. A scientific study by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded with 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by the accumulation of man-made greenhouse gasses.”

    There is always someone who doesn’t get the word!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tom G(ologist)

    I did an hour-long presentation today to my college geology class (101 level) and they were all total engrossed (first time all semester). They were at turns amazed, amused, appalled, and finally angered. The response was great and I take it as a good cross section pulse of the country. Their collective response was of being shocked that this has not appeared in the mainstream news, bewildered that the White House can continue to believe the hype, dismayed that they feel that their science education before colelge level was a farce because climate change was shoved down their throats incessantly, and relieved that what has always seemed to be nonsense, really is nonsense.

    I get to address the regional chamber of commerce in my are next week on this issue – should be fun.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Although the wheels of justice may grind slow they do grind exceedingly small. As I’ve posted elsewhere on this website the games are about to begin. Michael Mann says that he did not delete any emails! Hmmmm! Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, wrote Dr. Mann: “Mike: Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re [the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report]? Keith will do likewise. . . . Can you also e-mail Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new e-mail address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.” Dr. Mann wrote back: “I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP. His new e-mail is: generwahl@yahoo.com. talk to you later, Mike.”
    Even if Mann did not delete any emails (I personally believe that he did.) he stated that he would contact Gene [Wahl] ASAP and also provided Gene’s email address to Jones. By doing so he participated in the conspiracy. Criminal conspiracy really pisses off the U.S. legal system.

    Is it just a coincidence that emails and information disappeared at the same time the FOI requests were made? Some posters mention ego and reputation as a motive for the criminal conspiracy. These motives are at best, in my opinion, secondary. As Deep Throat said to Bernstein and Woodward during the Watergate Affair, “Follow the money.” These pillars of the scientific community did it for the grant money! The louder the warning sirens wailed the more money poured in.

    More than half of American families own guns. Despite the liberals never ending attempt to destroy the right to bear arms guaranteed by the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution the Supreme Court recently ruled that it is, indeed, a right. The fact that so many Americans exercise their right to bear arms is probably why there has never been a coupe in the United States. 73% of Americans are angry or very angry at the government. Political survival is an instinct endemic to politicians across the globe. Just as your ETS was defeated in your country by “brave” politicians trying to save their jobs so it is in the U.S. Harry Reid, who trails his nearest competitor in the upcoming elections by at least ten points has said that Cap and trade will not come up for a vote this year. As these survivalists sense the prevailing political winds and as the 2010 elections near I do not believe that there is a snowballs chance in hell that cap and trade will become law. This is going to look like an episode of the television show “Survivor.”
    They will form alliances with others to save their own political hides until it becomes necessary to betray their allies in order to survive. It is like limbo dancing, they will go as low as they possibly can. A better analogy may be the classic movie “Mr. Smith goes to Washington” starring James Stewart. In the end, the politicians in the movie did whatever it took to survive.
    The Bible says that God told Noah to go aboard the ark because he was going to destroy humans for their sins. As soon as Noah disembarked people went right back to sinning. As soon as this Global Warming scam dies the far left will, like the Phoenix, rise from their own ashes and start working another angle to trample upon our liberties and control our lives. After failing to enthrall us through control of the energy supply it will be interesting to see what they try next. They may be evil but they are resourceful.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    All,

    Check this out. Oh No, the sharks are going to get PO’d at us for climate change…..

    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/979699/climate-change-could-enrage-sharks

    What a load of myopic drivel, Henri paget.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ MadJak,

    Thanks, I just read the article. Maybe Jaws is pissed because the corals are being bleached! (BTW, corals evolved in much warmer waters.) Could it possibly be that A.) MSN is promoting this propaganda to support its parent company, G.E. which stands to make a huge profit from “Green” technology which will be used to fight Gorebull warming. B.) Pandering by the professor to get more grant money. C.) An attempt by GE to influence Australian politics. or D.) all of the above. The correct answer is… well if you answered anything other than D.) please send money to me so that I can help Al Gore to buy the Brooklyn bridge and fight global schmarming!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    And this one Just in…

    Go Chris!

    “Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s.”

    It’s taken NASA 2 years to ignore his FOI requests… They’re meant to release the info within 30 days apparently.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Aussies,

    It might be worth mentioning the media blackout on this issue to mediawatch.

    Their email is mediawatch@your.abc.net.au


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JS

    Rudd must be worried – the top Google search article on climategate quotes a top Australian government scientist as saying `Climategate’ helps oil and gas lobbyists. Note the use of quotation marks. ARTICLE


    Report this

    00

  • #
    J.Hansford

    Thanks for reminding me of that insipid program MadJak, I just sent Mediawatch an email.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JS

    Sarah Palin is on the climategate case – tells Obama to boycott Copenhagen.
    Says saying Alaskan Polar bears are endangered is just Snake Oil. PolarBears


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by rosier., GlobalWarmingHoax. GlobalWarmingHoax said: #tcot "The Tipping Point Tipped" Currently reading href=http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/the-tipping-point-tipped/ [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    I posted this before, but it’s more relevant now that I suspect GISS will be the next to fall.

    This is the raw temperature data from the D2 cloud data set I obtained from ISCCP, (a GISS project). The red line is raw monthly temps and the dotted black line is the instantaneous monthly anomaly.

    http://www.palisad.com/co2/temp.gif

    The discontinuity in late 2001 was caused by the switch from NOAA-14 to NOAA-16 and should have been handled properly, based on how the several other polar orbiter transitions were processed. They’ve known about this for at least 2 years, but there doesn’t seem to be any urgency to fix it and I’m told that “The data isn’t supposed to be used for climate modeling”. It’s far and away the largest magnitude and worst documented anomaly in the data set, which is unusual, because otherwise, I consider the data to be of very high quality and extremely well documented, as I would expect from NASA. I suspect that this is because if you treat it as a simple bias, which is a close approximation to what needs to be done to correct it, the temperature plot becomes this.

    http://www.palisad.com/co2/temp_fb.gif

    Which is not exactly what they want to see. However, if you apply the ‘trick’ of 5 year averaging to the broken data, you get this, which is closer to what they want to see.

    http://www.palisad.com/co2/temp_5.gif.

    Isn’t it amazing what you can do with some simple data processing.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Jac

    Thanks for the link to Mediawatch. I have just sent them the following:

    I have been watching the quite astonishing revelations on the web in the hacked emails from the CRU in UK. Since politicians around the world are proposing to spend many billions of taxpayers money on the basis of data and interpretations supplied by these people it would seem to be appropriate that the world’s media report and investigate the situation very fully. Curiously, however we see very little on ABC about the scandal – why is this?

    The danger for media such as yourselves is that you are abrogating your journalistic responsibilities to the internet and related virtual media and exposing yourselves to accusations of bias in reporting.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Dean McAskil

    The AGW hoax, the greatest scientific scam in a generation, is dead. The heart was lacerated by Climategate a few weeks ago, and it is just taking time to bleed out.

    At this stage there is only entertainment value in watching the main stream media, carpetbaggers like VP Gore and government shills like Wong and Turnbull trying to administer CPR (no pun intended.)…If we keep pumping, one more breath, one more heart beat, we might get one more dollar, a tax increase or piece of legislation through, before the corpse starts to stink up the place.

    Just give it up guys.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    UN (IPCC) to investigate; it’s on the BBC main news (first item) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8394483.stm

    [ Congrats Phillip, You are the lucky 10,000th comment winner! :-) JoN ]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    I hesitate to post this. What follows is some ugly stuff, which was posted today on a website called Bread With Circus. My reason for copying an excerpt here is just to make sure we all realise there is still a war on.
    _______________
    “Fighting the Climate Change Deniers

    It is time for good people to speak out. Although “Climategate” is little more than another oil industry dis-information campaign, the people who are screaming that a few emails have somehow undone decades of solid science seem to be winning the battle for the soul of the West. ExxonMobil talking points are now effortlessly parroted by an army of echo-chamber bloggers acting in lockstep with major media outlets like FoxNews and the Drudge Report. Their champions are people like Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, one of the most compromised and corrupted people on the planet. It is time to stand up and fight back. I encourage all of good conscience to stand up to those now rallied, emboldened, and bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry. We must stand up and call them on their lies. They are actively working to prevent any action that may mitigate the coming train wreck of runaway climate change, which means that they are also actively working to drown your grandchildren.

    The truth is with us, and though this will become painfully obvious in the upcoming years, in the meantime we have to at least try to stand up for future generations. This isn’t about Al Gore, or a trading scheme. Science itself is being brutalized by an angry mob, and billions will suffer if the mob is allowed to triumph.”
    __________________


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Matty

    I just read that the Saudi’s have pulled the pin on Copenhagen (BBC) and are blaming climategate. “The emails prove that there is no relationship between human activity and climate”. Or that is their take. How many others will they take with them?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Matty

    Saudi’s also calling for a full UN investigation into email scandal!! Maybe some domino’s about to fall. Any excuse to bail I guess. What a shame – NOT


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    On the other side of the coin, here is a totally brilliant YouTube video, a commentary by a tv guy called Rex Murphy, that you really have to see. This certainly illustrates Joanne’s point of the tipping tipping point!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Deane

    Great Coverage Joanne. There is hope yet, although it won’t be from main stream media coverage. I live in SA. The Adelaide Advertiser reporting of this has been almost non existent – one good opinion piece by Andrew Bolt and nothing in the way of reporting until Dec. 3 when the standing down of Phil Jones was reported in an article implying only sceptics were concerned and uncritically reporting self serving remarks by Jones, Prof. Davies and Nicholas Stern. Is sent the following letter to the editor, but as yet it has not been published:
    A large quantity of emails and other files are leaked from a large corporation with enormous influence in its field. The emails show individuals in the organisation cooked the books in a way to potentially cost investors millions. It shows them conspiring to destroy and withhold emails and records asked for in a Freedom of Information Request, to prevent any independent checking of their claims. It shows them inventing and artificially adjusting data to present a more favourable picture. It shows them exerting influence on magazines to prevent any articles contrary to their view being published. This pressure included successful efforts to get an editor removed. It shows them conspiring to ensure articles favourable to their view are published. It shows that receipts prior to 1980 were destroyed.
    More than ten days after the release, the first article (except for one opinion piece) appears on page 47 in the Advertiser, reporting the vice president of the division was forced to stand aside following an investigation. In this article only the victims were named as having an interest in this fraud and had seized on it to fight what the company was trying to do. It uncritically reported attempts by the vice president to “explain away” his behaviour and the attempt by the CEO to say it was nothing to worry about. The article glossed over the extent of the malpractice and totally ignored its impact.
    The above is a rough parallel to the Advertiser’s reporting of a major scandal in climate science (becoming known as “Climategate”) that throws into question the reliability of the UN IPCC reports underpinning current actions to curb CO2 emissions, and the accuracy of the most used global surface temperature record (which was “adjusted” by them to show greater cooling in the earlier part of the century and greater warming in the latter part). I suggest if what I have outlined above had actually occurred in a major and hugely influential corporation, The Advertiser and the whole main stream media would have been in a reporting frenzy from day one. This scandal involves a large group of the most influential climate scientists at, and working with, the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. These include lead authors of key IPCC climate change report chapters. Their actions place a question mark over many of the “consensus” conclusions about human caused global warming and need to be resolved before any action is taken to curb CO2 emissions.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JS

    The CRU email string at 1254751382.txt makes fascinating reading tobecause it explains so much. It discusses the Yaml tree problems, Keith Briffa’s methodology ( Phil Jones is evasive, Tom Wigly is very defensive here ) , IPCC review process being fatally flawed, having crumbling scientific credibility and whether a period of 30 years of no warming would be sufficient to falsify the man made CO2 global warming hypothesis (one scientist thinks not!).

    I enjoyed this quote from a geoengineer : “carbon abatement is only a game; It won’t happen significantly
    in their lifetime AND IT WONT BE ENOUGH IN ANY CASE. HENCE WE WILL NEED A GEOENGINEERING SOLUTION COME WHAT MAY!” -


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Hey Phillip. Congratulations. You are the lucky winner of the 10,000th comment on this site!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark Stevens

    Sir Muir Russell “independent” inquisitor of Hadleygate and since 2000 a member of the royal society of Edinburgh….the Royal Society of Edinburgh sez;- `The science that indicates that climate change is resulting from greenhouse gas emissions is well established, with the only real uncertainty being the scale of the future changes. Even if an ambitious international settlement can be achieved at the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit, Scotland will need to adapt to the climate change that is already inevitable.`
    the appointment of a favoured Labour hack and esteemed member of the auspicious RSE is somewhat reminissent of the BBC`s comedic tv series (YES, prime Minister.)with PM Jim Hacker entrusting arch mandarin Humphrey Applegate to investigate cronyism the Govts civil service.
    Independent or pigs arse? the truth molesters are at work.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Leigh

    Highly recommend this audio from Radio National’s Counterpoint. Prof Aynsly Kellow, one of the Australian reviewers of the IPCC reports talks about the leaked emails.

    http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2009/2757619.htm


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JS

    Joanne, as a science presenter you may be interested in this. PoliticalCalculations asks the question Has Climate Science become a Pseudoscience?

    I would argue it has never been a science because it lacks the essential ingredient of a classical scientific discipline.

    Its assumptions and predictions are couched in probabilistic terms so thay are not falsifiable and it is “not even wrong”.
    This is the same criticism PeterWoit makes of Physics String Theory – a theory which attempts to explain the entire universe, but in 30 years has been unable to make a single prediction capable of falsifying the theory, if it actually proved wrong.

    Post modernism in science is regrettably now all the rage. The British Met bureau makes similar predictions – e.g. the probability this Summer of warmer than normal temperature is 35%, the probability of average temperature is 35% and the probability of lower than average temperature is 30%. Obviously it is having an each way bet , but is this Science ?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JS

    Nature editorial exposes circular reasoning :

    Nature : Denialists often maintain that these changes are just a symptom of natural climate variability. But when climate modellers test this assertion by running their simulations with greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide held fixed, the results bear little resemblance to the observed warming. The strong implication is that increased greenhouse-gas emissions have played an important part in recent warming, meaning that curbing the world’s voracious appetite for carbon is essential. ( end quote )

    Well … DUH! The model assumes that CO2 causes warming. Now if I just turn CO2 off , my model doesn’t show warming. and this proves what, exactly ?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Leigh (#43)…

    Thank you very much for pointing to that interview. Very interesting, and well worth the time to listen to it. And also, very heartening to see this material on mainstream radio, being presented in such a clear and forthright way.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Fiona

    The Australian rather bravely ran a piece on Al Gore this morning.

    Check out the comments.

    Copenhagen emissions deal would be first step, says Al Gore


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BJM

    I do note with interest, just how the ‘Climanista’ adherents are getting desperate. They are now comparing Climate Change or Global Warming or . . . . whatever – (this scam has had so many names, it is hard to keep track) – with cigarette smoking.
    What with radio advertising – instead of Copenhagen, they call it ‘Hopenagen’ – the poor citizens of Copenhagen Denmark, (who are now forced to endure the biggest ‘swindle meet’ in history) – and the ‘Climanista’ do not have the good manners to restrain their propaganda and call their city by its’ correct name.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JS

    Hey people,

    The emails are going now to be investigated by – UM – the IPCC !


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    JS

    Joanne, congratulations for getting this on WUWT website.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Hi Joanne.
    First thank you for all you have done to expose this global hoax. This is not an update, this is is just an acknowledgement from myself, my friends and your myriad supporters.

    Thank you for doing this. I am not a political person but I had been feeling a horrible sense of doom before the vote (ets) and on the morning I remember not lookoing at the news banners outside the deli’s.

    I felt sick. …

    When I got home the tv was on and we knew the rest. We didn’t speak for a while. Then we just grinned and hugged.

    Anyway I just want to say thank you to the guy who hacked the cru. Thank you. Thank you.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    Joanne

    The congratulations are to you for having a site that, because of the excellent work you do and the fine content, attracts people here.

    You are on WUWT right now. Congatulations again.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JS

    Interesting, BBC HaveYourSay is asking “will the emails affect the chances of a deal in Copenhagen” and being deluged with angry anti-AGW comments


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ben Hern

    I followed Mad Jack’s link and found a subsequent link to a story about Paul McCartney exhorting the citizens of UK to go vegetarian to fight climate change:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/politics_show/regions/yorkshire_and_lincolnshire/8392865.stm.
    It’s almost as absurd as the story of Sheryl Crow suggesting we all use less toilet paper to fight the hot-air affect:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6583067.stm
    why don’t these people do themselves a favour and drop the drugs?
    For a glimpse inside the imaginations of really deranged people (who seriously are out of touch with reality, if not deserving the title of deniers), see this commune – who despite evidence, still belief their misguided e-mail slacktivism can manage to impose a national 80km/hr speed limit and ban on flying within Britain:
    http://portal.campaigncc.org/content/10-10-ban-domestic-flights-0
    This is the level of dementure suffered by apparently many individuals, The rest of us really do have a burdensome duty of care to help these misguided souls recover their tentative grip on reality.

    Cheerio,
    Ben


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Here are two interesting things about Copenhagen that I noticed today.

    1. Fox News (pesky bunch) reported that Al Gore has cancelled his speech. Is he afraid of something?

    2. Fox News (darn, they’re at it again) reports that Obama is now going to wait until near the end of the big confab to show up. The White House says he thinks he’ll be more effective if he waits until all the world leaders are there. Having watched him for a while I’ll bet he thinks he better wait and see what the tone of the meeting turns out to be so he can adjust his position accordingly. Or maybe decide not to show up?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Hi Ben,

    Yeah, I have had a suspicion for quite a while that hard core vegitarians suffer brain damage in the long term. Bad diet, bad brain I reckon.

    As for Cheryl crow, she should learn to sing before telling me she knows how I should wipe my bottom.

    Like a lot of people I have had an absolute gutsful of the hippocracy of these people.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce

    Re MadJak post #26.

    I took your advice and fired off an email to mediawatch. I think I may have exposed a raw nerve. Though, I actually think the reply isn’t too bad – at least they admit that climategate was under reported in the Australian MSM. See below for a copy of my email + reply from mediawatch:

    Subject: Where is Climategate?…Cancel Media Watch
    Dear Media Watch,

    I don’t see the point of your show when it’s obvious that the ABC does not report news that is contrary to its political agenda.

    Just like the CSIRO refused to publish a paper criticising the ETS, The ABC refuses to mention climategate – despite the fact that Google has received more search requests for climategate than for Barack Obama. This story is gathering momentum in the UK & US at an incredible pace. Where is the coverage on the ABC?

    Hence its obvious the whole ABC ignores it’s charter and filters the news to support some internal agenda, and your show is just regurgitated and censored CR*P!

    Bring on fast broadband, so that people have the option of determining their own news source, and not some Orwellian puppet of the prevailing current political opinions.

    I suggest you get another job fast …perhaps one that requires more integrity, like a used car saleman.

    Sincerely,

    Bruce

    Reply:
    Dear Mr Bruce

    I don’t quite catch the drift of your email. Climategate may well have been under-reported on the ABC (and the rest of the Australian media come to that). But the fact is, Media Watch has been off air since November 8th – long before the Climategate story broke – so there’s absolutely nothing we can do about it. Neither my job, not my integrity, are remotely relevant.

    I noticed that ABC News did carry a report about the Uni of East Anglia emails (admittedly, very belatedly) when Prof Phil Jones stood down and the IPCC announced an inquiry – I think on 4 December. Lateline carried a report on the hacked emails on 24/11.

    Regards

    Mediawatch


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    You know bloggers, I don’t get upset at the Rudds or Wongs or Flannerys’ of this world, nor the bankers wringing their hands together waiting for the billions to drop on to their laps, not even Gore or the wags at the UN. There have always been barrow pushers chasing self interest in all aspects of society, and there always will be in the future.

    What gets me angry are those supposed educated, intelligent people who take their info from 30second grabs on tv, then (admitedly with all good intentions) regurgitate the same at home, at work, and cry how terribly we’ve treated the planet all the whilst being complicit in the indoctrination of their kids.
    These supposed intelligent people are not just mums and dads, but politicians sitting on the backbench, journalists, professionals and many others from all walks of life.

    Does it not occur to them to spend just a short time researching this? such a simple thing to do in this age of computers and the net, especially since it’s supposed to be the most important phenomena of our time? If they did, surely they would see – from any angle they wish to look at it, science, finance, morality – that it’s such a no brainer. I have to say it again..IT’S A NO BRAINER.

    Their primary school science and geography should have told them that this planet has had many instances in the past when it was warmer, more humid and had more CO2 in the atmosphere. They KNOW we’ve had ice ages before and will again, they KNOW plants need and want more CO2.

    Nobody needs to get into the nity gritty of the science or the machinations of the IPCC, the most basics of commonsense should tell them that theres something fishy going on here.

    And ofcourse, there are those who are just naturally argumentative, irregardless of how many different ways you smack em on the head with commonsense and facts, they just keep on argueing resolutely and pigheadedly. They’re just a total loss I’m afraid.

    The shame of it is, if alarmists are successful, if we do reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosph. which is at a low level as it is, we will not only starve the vegetation, but we’ll starve millions of people already on the poverty line. Taking away their only hope of getting out of the poverty cycle – cheap energy – will make it all the worse.

    Alarmists accuse us of endangering the planet, when in reality, their self interest will end up killing millions of people, with all good intentions ofcourse.

    I hope sanity prevails.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Baa Humbug,

    You raise an interesting point, the killing of millions of people. There is some evidence that this is exactly the goal of at least some within the IPCC. Many of them are members of environmental and “green” groups whose position is easy to find. They believe there are too many people polluting their planet and have no qualms about saying so.

    A quote from John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club is instructive on this point. “Man is always and everywhere a blight on the landscape.”

    But it won’t happen from reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It will happen by taxing energy right out of the reach of millions of people. This is exactly what the confab in Copenhagen hopes to do, make energy impossibly expensive for millions of people.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Roy #60

    I agree. I didn’t really want to get into the nitty gritty of some of the underlying agendas, there are so many of them. Even stating some makes US look like conspiracy theorists, cranks or extremists so I stay clear of it.
    Although sometimes I may quote some from time to time and leave it for others to make up their own mind. As an example, the captain of the Sea Shepherd, Paul Watson comes to mind. Forgive me I don’t have the link but should be easy to find. To paraphrase, he believes if one has a birth certificate, then one is guilty of crimes against nature, we are all parasites on mother natures back and that some people should be stopped from procreating coz they are not fit to etc etc
    Doesn’t really need a comment does it?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Baa Humbug,

    I have no problem believing you about Paul Watson without the link. I have to wonder how he justifies his own existance while holding such an extreme view.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Baa Humbug,

    He’s on the board of the Sierra Club. Google him (or Bing).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Hey Bruce,

    Good email to Mediawatch. I get the impression they’re wishing they weren’t off air to do some stirring with this one.

    The response however, might possibly show how sensitive the MSM is to the prospect of the Net taking over. Very sensitive topic, obviously. Let’s keep prodding that one ;)

    I get the impression that Mediawatch would probably do something about this one, if they were on air. May be they’re the last bastions of journalistic integrity? Obviously there is no journalistic integrity in the rest of the MSM.

    I think I might sell my TV, and just use the Net from here on in. I mean, why bother when something this important is filtered?

    I don’t want my kids to grow up in an environment where media is heavily censored by a nanny state.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Here’s a good link folks,

    Of course, it’s not mainstream, but this site helped me avoid the GFC quite nicely.

    http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/messages-from-copenhagen-climate-change-conference/2009/12/07/comment-page-1/#comment-124452


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JohnP

    “Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s Very Likely. Just 26% say it’s not very or not at all likely that some scientists falsified data.”

    How come that adds up to 120% ?

    This kind of reporting dosn’t help us when we are trying to prove they fudge the data.
    John


    Report this

    00

  • #

    The 59% includes those who say “it’s likely” and those who say “it’s somewhat likely”. So the numbers add up. 59% + 26% plus x% (who don’t know) = 100%

    It’s a direct quote from Rassmussen, but perhaps more context would help make it less ambiguous.

    Thanks for the feedback.

    Jo


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JohnP

    Ok, I understand now, it just looked funny.
    John


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Ben Hern

    While a decreasing number of us are still gullible enough to believe that a ~3% annual contribution to a trace gas can catastrophically alter climate (and is proven by models, anecdotal and circumstantial evidence and overwhelmingly supported by a ‘concensus’ of the 60 odd beneficiaries of the United nothing-doers IPCC), it would appear that the doctrine is moving to recruit tomorrow’s supporters:

    http://en.cop15.dk/denmark's+efforts/climate+education/climate+education+in+2009

    There’s Clive Hamilton’s letter to chilrden and presumably students in British schools are being force fed this myth, if the advertising campaign (Act on CO2) is any indication. (At least the Brits got the name of the gas right and didn’t exhort those who pay for an annual colour license to act on carbon).

    so the tipping point could be watched for in schools rather than meteorological observations or opinion polls. One has only to read the meally mouthed greetings to world leaders which were sent to COP15 to see how many kids were goaded into sending pleas for a future free of worry about the hot-air affect.

    Still a very long way to go before common sense prevails I fear.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Ben,

    Why am I not surprised?

    The question before us is how to deal with it. Parents and the whole community will have to find the backbone to stand up and protest, school by school. So far I don’t see the required level of understanding in enough people to pull it off.

    This goes on here in the states as well. Joanne posted an example from Australia.

    Hundreds of millions of homes have internet access. But we can’t force them to go to any given site. I wish we could.

    We might not even have to put it in terms of the science. Just to call attention to the unforgivable indoctrination of our children might be enough.

    Anyone, any ideas as to how to get the point spread far and wide?


    Report this

    00