JoNova

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


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Archives

Books

Putting ClimateGate in Perspective

Image: ClimateGate Tank arrives in Australia
I attribute much of the recent rapid rise of the skeptics to the ongoing effects of ClimateGate, yet in a sense the emails that were sprung from East Anglia did nothing more than confirm what most skeptics already suspected. Despite that, I’m convinced it was instrumental, and Lawrence Solomon, author of The Deniers, has written an unusually good summary in the form of a speech for the Colorado Mining Association.

With his permission, I’ve included my favourite points here, as well as a copy of the full speech. His blog is a part of the Energy Probe team.

The Climategate emails confirmed much of what the sceptics had been saying for years.

  • They confirmed that the peer review process had been corrupted, that scientists were arranging friendly reviews.
  • They confirmed that the science journals had been corrupted.
  • That journals that refused to play ball with the doomsayers faced boycotts and their editors faced firing.
  • They confirmed that sceptical scientists were being systematically excluded from the top‐tier journals.
  • The Climategate emails confirmed that journalists were likewise threatened with boycotts if they didn’t play ball.
  • The Climategate emails confirmed that the science itself was suspect. That the doomsayers themselves couldn’t make the data work. That they were debating among themselves some of the same points that the sceptics raised, and were privately acknowledging that they didn’t have answers to the issues that the sceptics raised.
  • The Climategate emails confirmed that the doomsayers were so determined to hide their data from inquiring minds that they were prepared to break the law to hide it – and did break the law – by avoiding Freedom of Information requests.
  • The Climategate emails confirmed that raw temperature data collected from countries around the world was destroyed. It appears the UK is missing raw temperature data going back to 1850.

The scientists at the heart of the Climategate emails aren’t fringe players on some periphery. They operate what’s known as the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University in the UK. This is the group that collects temperature data, messages it, and then feeds it to the UN and others. This is the data that we have been relying on to tell us if the globe has been warming or not. This same data is then used by virtually everyone in the climate science field who is concerned with historical temperatures.

Without the raw data, it is impossible to confirm that the planet has been warming over the last 150 years. The only ones who now know by how much the planet has been warming, if at all, are the same people who have destroyed the raw data. There are now six separate investigations underway which have been spawned by the Climategate emails. One of those six is by the UK Met Office, which partnered with the Climatic Research Unit in producing the data sets.
The UK Met Office – this is the UK government’s meteorological department – says it will need three years to recreate the data that has been destroyed.

Which aspect of the ClimateGate expose was most important?

Here Laurence and I don’t necessarily agree, he points at the effect it had on the “doomsayers”:

No, the real significance of the Climategate emails comes from the panic they instilled in the ranks of the doomsayers.
With all these investigations going on, the doomsayers are starting to point fingers at each other. The conspirators are turning on each other in attempts to exculpate themselves.

He has some good examples too, but I think the main effect was first and foremost on skeptics, and then on the press and officials, and secondarily on the carbon crisis crowd (but it’s open  for debate). Why do I say “skeptics” first? Because ClimateGate transformed the skeptical community. Those who were borderline skeptic were not just pulled into the active camp, they were turbo-charged. For them the issue had shifted from a scene where science had been exaggerated to a question about active deceit. This wasn’t just about stretching the truth, it was now fraud. As I mentioned in December, and again in more detail last month, nothing bar anything galvanises people more than the innate urge to strike back at a free-loader–it’s retribution, and there’s an evolutionary reason why altruistic groups need to punish those who abuse their trust. Worse, the lowest parasites are those who prey on our good nature; those who tell us we should help the planet, all while they aim to help themselves.

For those skeptics like myself who were already active, the Climategate emails gave us license to escalate our language. We no longer were constrained so much by the threat of legal action against us. It was clear that most of the Climategate subjects would never want to go to court where a discovery of documents would expose their failings to rigorous analysis.

Together these shifts created an army of emailling, letter-writing, phone calling skeptics. It was this new force that generated the ripple effect through thousands of results in online polls, comments on news articles, and letters to the editors. Political parties noticed, journalists couldn’t miss it, and so eventually did the institutions of the doomsayers. Without thousands of skeptics out there to broadcast the messages in the emails, the sound of emails sneaking out of a university science unit would surely have fallen on few ears.

A story of top scientists who were ignored

Aside from my minor quibble about the players in the unfolding ClimateGate saga, Solomon has written a very good speech. Some of it comes straight from his book “The Deniers”–which I recommend. He’s one of the only authors that can get away with using the term “Deniers”–mostly because he’s taken the term to a logical extreme, and shown how the namecalling is  used against some of the most qualified and esteemed people. I enjoyed reading The Deniers. Solomon has done a lot of research, and from an angle that few others have pursued. It’s well written.


Click on the image to see the book for sale on Amazon.

From the book:

“More than six months ago, I began writing this series, The Deniers. When I began, I accepted the prevailing view that scientists overwhelmingly believe that climate change threatens the planet. I doubted only claims that the dissenters were either kooks on the margins of science or sell-outs in the pockets of the oil companies.

“My series set out to profile the dissenters — those who deny that the science is settled on climate change — and to have their views heard. To demonstrate that dissent is credible, I chose high-ranking scientists at the world’s premier scientific establishments. I considered stopping after writing six profiles, thinking I had made my point, but continued the series due to feedback from readers. I next planned to stop writing after 10 profiles, then 12, but the feedback increased. Now, after profiling more than 20 deniers [38 at last count], I do not know when I will stop — the list of distinguished scientists who question the IPCC grows daily, as does the number of emails I receive, many from scientists who express gratitude for my series.

“Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that a scientific consensus exists on climate change. Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists — the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects — and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have profiled. If anything, the majority view among these subsets of the scientific community may run in the opposite direction.” …

“Most of the deniers I have written about have suffered for their scientific findings — some have been forced from their positions, others lost funding grants or been publicly criticized. In writing about these … , I have inadvertently added to their anguish. None among [them] welcome the term “denier” — a hateful word that I used ironically, but perhaps illadvisedly. … The word “denier,” of course, is employed to tar scientists who dissent from IPCC convention. In other disciplines, dissent is part of what’s called ‘the scientific method’ and lauded.”

For commenters — obviously I expect people to use the term “denier” in discussion below. But as usual, if someone throws it as an insult, they’ll still need to come up with the empirical evidence we deny, or apologize before they can post again…

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (2 votes cast)
Putting ClimateGate in Perspective, 10.0 out of 10 based on 2 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/yffm5kp

74 comments to Putting ClimateGate in Perspective

  • #
    yonason

    Thanks. Solomon’s series is excellent. Glad to have this latest addition to his work.

    00

  • #
    yonason

    p.s. – here’s the online version I referred to when calling it a “series.”

    00

  • #

    I am a layman who was able to see the B.S. easily and for YEARS too.

    What excuse does honest but AGW believing scientists have for an excuse of not seeing it?

    00

  • #

    A fine article. Thanks to both Jo and Lawrence for making it available.

    00

  • #
    Mark Allinson

    “The word “denier,” of course, is employed to tar scientists who dissent from IPCC convention. In other disciplines, dissent is part of what’s called ‘the scientific method’ and lauded.”

    This fact provides the clearest evidence that AGW theory (in the mass of its non-scientist believers at least) is a de facto religious movement. The word they really want to use against opponents is “infidel”, but that would give the game away.

    In a culture where traditional religious belief is in decline, and is often abused by postmodern intellectuals for its perceived foolishness, it is fascinating to see the religious impulse to believe in a doctrine spontaneously erupt in this way, especially among the anti-religionists, and with all the old religious rage and fervour. The present fury of the believers against the climate doubters seems identical to the fury of Catholics to the Protestant deniers of “the real presence” of Christ in the sixteenth century.

    This is not the only example of a modern secular movement taking on all the trappings of a religious attitude – as Robert J. Lifton’s “Revolutionary Immortality” showed regarding Chinese Communism. The human being, alone among the animals, seems to have an innate need to believe in something, and even atheists believe in non-belief.

    However, this means that the essentially religious AGW movement is unlikely to be converted by scientific evidence, and perhaps we need to examine the history of theological disputes to see where it might take us next.

    00

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    Mark Allinson
    Agree. A mind is like a parachute- it has to be open to work. (Oldie but a goodie). You can’t get through to someone whose mind is made up. I’m not sure that any religious conversions were made by rational argument. I think we just have to keep chipping away, because it’s the waverers, the swinging voters, those who want 2 bob each way, who eventually will tip the balance. And Climategate has started the tide to turn. (3 metaphors in one post!!)

    00

  • #

    [...] Climategate confirmed our worst fears – AGW is simply climate porn!, Lame stream media has hysterics over earth hour whilst the populace couldn’t be bothered with the propaganda!, Auditing the humorous! [...]

    00

  • #
    Binny

    I have no doubt that AGW will be taught in science classes for generations to come. (Though not for the reasons that the true believers imagined).I’m also sure that the link between the decline in traditional religions, and the rise of AGW will be recognised and much discussed.

    00

  • #
    Mia Nony

    CLAUDIA ROSETT: SOROS HELPS “MOBILIZE” FUNDING FOR UN CLIMATE CHANGE GROUP
    http://pajamasmedia.com/claudiarosett/

    UN Recruits George Soros to Help With Climate Financing

    For all you folks out there who take an interest in the doings of George Soros, some UN press releases. On March 4, the UN announced that Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon had picked a panel of “high-level experts” to form a UN “Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing.” Their assignment is to help “mobilize” the funding promised at the Copenhagen Climate Carnival this past December.

    Here’s the list. It includes an interesting mix of public and private officials, ranging from the prime minister of Ethiopia, the president of Guyana, and Larry Summers of the Obama administration; to a vice-chairman of Deutsche Bank and financier George Soros.

    According to the UN press release, this group will hold its first meeting this Monday, March 29, in London.

    One might hope that their discussion would take into account the cratering of any scientific “consensus” on the UN’s sweeping pronouncements about climate change. But since this movement is ever more clearly about money, not science, my bet is that this will amount to yet another bid to scavenge yet more money out of your low-level pocket — and funnel it to wherever these “high-level” folks think it should go. Just one more sign of the times.

    00

  • #
    Mia Nony

    CUT AND RUN, LOVELOCK

    This is a game changer.

    James Lovelock — formerly the world’s number one leading global warming fear promoter — is now praising climate skeptics! What a difference 3 years makes. Climate Depot is proud to serve up skepticism daily to aid in the psychological healing of former believers in man-made climate fears.

    See Flashback 2007: Lovelock Predicts Global Warming Doom: ‘Billions of us will die; few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in Arctic

    Shock: Green Guru Lovelock warms to skeptics! ‘The skeptics have kept us sane…They have kept us from regarding the climate science as a religion. It had gone too far that way’ UK Times – March 14, 2010

    Lovelock: ‘Effect of man-made carbon is unpredictable. Temperatures might go down at first, rather than up’

    Lovelock: ‘I think you have to accept that the skeptics have kept us sane – some of them, anyway. They have been a breath of fresh air’

    ‘Lovelock places great emphasis on proof…He is concerned that projections are relying on computer models…because models of that kind have let us down before’

    SHOCK: UK Green Guru James Lovelock Reconsiders Warming Views?!:

    Lovelock: Man-made Carbon Emissions ‘Have Saved Us from A New Ice Age’ - UK Daily Express – March 11, 2020

    Lovelock in 2010: ‘I hate all this business about feeling guilty about what we’re doing. We’re not guilty’

    Lovelock in 2010: ‘Observations done by hand are accurate
    but all the theoretical stuff in between tends to be very dodgy and I think they are seeing this with climate change’

    Flashback 2009: Environmental guru Lovelock slams carbon trading: ‘Most of the green stuff is verging on gigantic scam’

    http://www.climatedepot.com/a/5822/Shock-Green-Guru-Lovelock-warms-to-skeptics-The-skeptics-have-kept-us-saneThey-have-kept-us-from-regarding-climate-science-as-a-religion-It-had-gone-too-far-that-way

    00

  • #
    Mia Nony

    IF IT WASN’T FOR THE INTERNET? Here in Canada we would never see any of this:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/26/2857685.htm?section=justin

    Climate ‘deniers’ accuse journal of censorship
    By Sarah Clarke

    Updated Sat Mar 27, 2010

    The senior author of the report says man has had little impact on global warming (Library of Congress)
    The latest debate on climate science to emerge centres on a paper that suggests humans played no role in the recent warming trend and that El Nino activity is mostly to blame.

    00

  • #
    Mia Nony

    NO, NOT BILL GATES, (although is is funding both the Doomsday Seed Vault and the Sorcerer’s Apprenctice nightmare of mad scientists pursuing radical planetary geoengineering with the fallout of ever more horrific pollution, on the pretext that even the mass deaths this will incur are worth it to save the planet)
    How many gates and how much denial can these warmists indulge in before they implode?

    ClimateGate – This scandal began the latest round of revelations when thousands of leaked documents from Britain’s East Anglia Climate Research Unit showed systematic suppression and discrediting of climate skeptics’ views and discarding of temperature data, suggesting a bias for making the case for warming. Why do such a thing if, as global warming defenders contend, the “science is settled?”

    FOIGate – The British government has since determined someone at East Anglia committed a crime by refusing to release global warming documents sought in 95 Freedom of Information Act requests. The CRU is one of three international agencies compiling global temperature data. If their stuff’s so solid, why the secrecy?

    ChinaGate – An investigation by the U.K.’s left-leaning Guardian newspaper found evidence that Chinese weather station measurements not only were seriously flawed, but couldn’t be located. “Where exactly are 42 weather monitoring stations in remote parts of rural China?” the paper asked. The paper’s investigation also couldn’t find corroboration of what Chinese scientists turned over to American scientists, leaving unanswered, “how much of the warming seen in recent decades is due to the local effects of spreading cities, rather than global warming?” The Guardian contends that researchers covered up the missing data for years.

    HimalayaGate – An Indian climate official admitted in January that, as lead author of the IPCC’s Asian report, he intentionally exaggerated when claiming Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035 in order to prod governments into action. This fraudulent claim was not based on scientific research or peer-reviewed. Instead it was originally advanced by a researcher, since hired by a global warming research organization, who later admitted it was “speculation” lifted from a popular magazine. This political, not scientific, motivation at least got some researcher funded.

    PachauriGate – Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman who accepted with Al Gore the Nobel Prize for scaring people witless, at first defended the Himalaya melting scenario. Critics, he said, practiced “voodoo science.” After the melting-scam perpetrator ‘fessed up, Pachauri admitted to making a mistake. But, he insisted, we still should trust him.

    PachauriGate II – Pachauri also claimed he didn’t know before the 192-nation climate summit meeting in Copenhagen in December that the bogus Himalayan glacier claim was sheer speculation. But the London Times reported that a prominent science journalist said he had pointed out those errors in several e-mails and discussions to Pachauri, who “decided to overlook it.” Stonewalling? Cover up? Pachauri says he was “preoccupied.” Well, no sense spoiling the Copenhagen party, where countries like Pachauri’s India hoped to wrench billions from countries like the United States to combat global warming’s melting glaciers. Now there are calls for Pachauri’s resignation.

    SternGate – One excuse for imposing worldwide climate crackdown has been the U.K.’s 2006 Stern Report, an economic doomsday prediction commissioned by the government. Now the U.K. Telegraph reports that quietly after publication “some of these predictions had been watered down because the scientific evidence on which they were based could not be verified.” Among original claims now deleted were that northwest Australia has had stronger typhoons in recent decades, and that southern Australia lost rainfall because of rising ocean temperatures. Exaggerated claims get headlines. Later, news reporters disclose the truth. Why is that?

    SternGate II – A researcher now claims the Stern Report misquoted his work to suggest a firm link between global warming and more-frequent and severe floods and hurricanes. Robert Muir-Wood said his original research showed no such link. He accused Stern of “going far beyond what was an acceptable extrapolation of the evidence.” We’re shocked.

    AmazonGate – The London Times exposed another shocker: the IPCC claim that global warming will wipe out rain forests was fraudulent, yet advanced as “peer-reveiwed” science. The Times said the assertion actually “was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise,” “authored by two green activists” and lifted from a report from the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group. The “research” was based on a popular science magazine report that didn’t bother to assess rainfall. Instead, it looked at the impact of logging and burning. The original report suggested “up to 40 percent” of Brazilian rain forest was extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall, but the IPCC expanded that to cover the entire Amazon, the Times reported.

    PeerReviewGate – The U.K. Sunday Telegraph has documented at least 16 nonpeer-reviewed reports (so far) from the advocacy group World Wildlife Fund that were used in the IPCC’s climate change bible, which calls for capping manmade greenhouse gases.

    RussiaGate – Even when global warming alarmists base claims on scientific measurements, they’ve often had their finger on the scale. Russian think tank investigators evaluated thousands of documents and e-mails leaked from the East Anglia research center and concluded readings from the coldest regions of their nation had been omitted, driving average temperatures up about half a degree.

    Russia-Gate II – Speaking of Russia, a presentation last October to the Geological Society of America showed how tree-ring data from Russia indicated cooling after 1961, but was deceptively truncated and only artfully discussed in IPCC publications. Well, at least the tree-ring data made it into the IPCC report, albeit disguised and misrepresented.

    U.S.Gate – If Brits can’t be trusted, are Yanks more reliable? The U.S. National Climate Data Center has been manipulating weather data too, say computer expert E. Michael Smith and meteorologist Joesph D’Aleo. Forty years ago there were 6,000 surface-temperature measuring stations, but only 1,500 by 1990, which coincides with what global warming alarmists say was a record temperature increase. Most of the deleted stations were in colder regions, just as in the Russian case, resulting in misleading higher average temperatures.

    IceGate – Hardly a continent has escaped global warming skewing. The IPCC based its findings of reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and in Africa on a feature story of climbers’ anecdotes in a popular mountaineering magazine, and a dissertation by a Switzerland university student, quoting mountain guides. Peer-reviewed? Hype? Worse?

    ResearchGate – The global warming camp is reeling so much lately it must have seemed like a major victory when a Penn State University inquiry into climate scientist Michael Mann found no misconduct regarding three accusations of climate research impropriety. But the university did find “further investigation is warranted” to determine whether Mann engaged in actions that “seriously deviated from accepted practices for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities.” Being investigated for only one fraud is a global warming victory these days.

    ReefGate – Let’s not forget the alleged link between climate change and coral reef degradation. The IPCC cited not peer-reviewed literature, but advocacy articles by Greenpeace, the publicity-hungry advocacy group, as its sole source for this claim.

    AfricaGate – The IPCC claim that rising temperatures could cut in half agricultural yields in African countries turns out to have come from a 2003 paper published by a Canadian environmental think tank – not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

    DutchGate – The IPCC also claimed rising sea levels endanger the 55 percent of the Netherlands it says is below sea level. The portion of the Netherlands below sea level actually is 20 percent. The Dutch environment minister said she will no longer tolerate climate researchers’ errors.

    AlaskaGate – Geologists for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography and their U.S. and Canadian colleagues say previous studies largely overestimated by 40 percent Alaskan glacier loss for 40 years. This flawed data are fed into those computers to predict future warming.

    00

  • #
    Mark Allinson

    “IF IT WASN’T FOR THE INTERNET? Here in Canada we would never see any of this:”

    Exactly, Mia!

    So I wonder how long it will be before other Western democracies start introducing “internet filtering” programs, such as our current Labor government has proposed here in Oz. The stated aim, of course, is a laudable one: to block obscene and violent websites. But once introduced, these filtering programs could well be used to filter out “disturbing” content from wicked bloggers who want to deny scientific “truths”. Under the cover of “protecting the population from blatant and destructive lies”, blogs such as this one could find themselves on the blacklist of blocked sites. And with no list of blocked sites to be published, who would ever know?

    There is little doubt in my mind that without the internet we would now be well advanced down the road of full-on “cap and trade” all over the world.

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    Yes to me I thought it was old hat. I got a bit pushy with Sinclair on Catallaxy after I said it was fraud, and he claimed it wasn’t then I started hitting below the belt out of frustration, because I had been telling them that it was fraud for a couple of years before.

    Its not instaneously fraud if you ask for evidence and they won’t give it. You cannot say that once the ground has been muddied. But this is the case when you have tried to ask for that evidence for three straight years and it is not forthcoming.

    I knew that the only good data was CONVERGENT data. Hence the only good data set was where the balloons and the satellites backed eachother up. I tried to relate this to the general public in the simpleist possible terms. I tried to get all Sesame Street on the people.

    Evidence is not even evidence unless related to a specific hypothesis. And even if we agree this evidence, is in fact evidence, its still pretty feeble unless contrasted, by pitting it against a DIVERGENT hypothesis. A contrary hypothesis.

    But yet again, you can swith off and on the light switch all day, and into the night, and the VOLUME of evidence doesn’t make the hypothesis you are relating it to measureably stronger. For its not the volume of evidence that counts.

    Supposing my hypothesis is that when I turn on the light my unicorn friend called Bo Derek makes a snorting sound and this sound is what causes the light to shine?

    All the switching on and off of lights is but feeble evidence for this feeble hypothesis. And sadly me and my light-shining unicorn just cannot keep the friendship together.

    So what is it about EVIDENCE that makes it valuable to the hypothesis? Its not its volume. Its not its additive nature. You can fill all the notebooks in the world with data, and this will not rightly give you certitude for your prejudice.

    Its CONVERGENCE.

    Thats you when you know. Its evidence coming from different and disparate angles.

    Thats why we can be sure of the thrust of evolution. But there is almost NO-certainty, over the precise NATURE of evolution.

    With evolution in almost every case, the raw, micronised, evidence is very weak.

    But its CONVERGENT you-see? It convergent. So while not being arrogant about the specific nature of evolution, we can at least say that some thrust of this theory, is on the right path, even though the fossils don’t talk, and each tracer-line of evidence is almost transparent, in its weakness.

    Now we come back to the issue of the ground data, the balloon data, and the satelite data. Here we can apply the knowledge that CONVERGENCE is the main criterion for rightful certitude.

    After all “God” (or evolution, ((((not excluding other explanations))))) gave the dominant species on this planet, five dim senses, rather than one or two sharp ones, that man might have convergent evidencee to ponder about, in his quest for survival and mastery.

    So again we have the balloon data? The satallite data? And we have the ground data?

    Now why don’t I think I was being unfair to say that the ground data was fraudulent? Why?

    So we have the balloon data. We have the satellite data. Both of which agree with each-other. Convergent evidence. Good data. If the two sets of data were not good data they would not confirm each-other.

    Then we come to the ground data aggregations. And suddenly we find that “One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn’t belong. Can you tell me which thing is not like the others………..”

    So why did I insist that the ground data was fraud before the emails were released? Why was I so ho-hum about the emails? Why did I lose my temper at Sincliar when he denied that it was fraud?

    Somtimes you’ve just got to leave these things to Sesame Street. Someimes you’ve just got to let the cookie monster be your teacher.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WhuikFY1Pg&feature=player_embedded

    00

  • #

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by d l and d l, d l. d l said: @arceblanco Putting ClimateGate in Perspective #global warming #climate change http://bit.ly/9pQITm [...]

    00

  • #
    Dave N

    “In other disciplines, dissent is part of what’s called ‘the scientific method’ and lauded.”

    Says it all, really..

    00

  • #
    Ike

    I am disturbed that the most damning piece in all of the CRU emails continues to get buried.

    The HARRYREADME.txt file is chock full of evidence about fudging and smearing of data, with neither rhyme nor reason.

    Data was continually nudged to match preconceived notions of what proponents wanted to observe, and there is no evidence in the documentation backing up a scientific rationale for the adjustments.

    The lesson of the CRU emails is NOT proof of a conspiracy — and by promoting that, The Side of the Skeptics ends up looking and sounding like tin-foil hat whackjobs.

    The lesson of the CRU emails is NOT proof of arrogance — and by obsessing over Hockey Sticks and selling “Hide THIS decline” bumper stickers, Skeptics again miss the available opportunity.

    The Real lesson of the CRU emails is that this small enclave of scientists had no clue whatsoever about how to program a model. The HARRYREADME is a diary of spaghetti code that shows incompetence at best and criminality at worst.

    Under what circumstances should a research unit be using the very same code base for more than a decade?

    If their work had been true open scientific inquiry, they would have started from scratch with new computational engines, and honestly would have saved themselves BOATLOADS of time by taking advantage of modern computing power and techniques. Why were they wedded to databases and lazy, crappy code?

    Because they needed to make sure the (false) answers would still spit out in the direction they favored.

    The reason they didn’t want anyone to replicate their data and processes was THEY couldn’t do it themselves. The documentation in HARRYREADME would have outlined a decade of add-this, squeeze-that, and mute this section entirely, all to make the graphs look pretty. But ask them for computational justifications, and you’d get nothing.

    If they had been better programmers, they might have been able to mask it.

    00

  • #
    Binny

    Ike
    They stuck with the old code, for the same reason that Bernie Madoff did. An upgrade would have meant bringing in outsiders, and the scam would have been exposed.

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    Mia, Lovelock was always a good guy. It was clear to me that as a true scientist in his 80′s, he had simply been taken in by his younger contemporaries. And he had therefore pushed his own personal model way further then he could rightly do so, and on the basis of being utterly mislead.

    Had he been in his sixties, he would have had the extra energy and he would have been with our crowd. I alway made an exception for him because I knew he was a real scientist. When I was insulting these other fellows I’d always make an exception for Lovelock.

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    “The HARRYREADME.txt file is chock full of evidence about fudging and smearing of data, with neither rhyme nor reason.”

    Fully noted.

    Thanks.

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    Lets just itemise that? Could anyone ever imagine Lovelock being part of such emails as Ike is talking about?

    He’s cool.

    He’s righteous.

    He’s off the hook.

    We have to suppose he hasn’t got a real long time. And we must not undermine his person or legacy on the basis that these Gramscian bastards used him and got the better of him.

    In my initial investigations of this matter I started off calling him a crank and casually putting him down. But I had to humbly retract all that and conclude that he was sound and a good man. And he is.

    00

  • #
    pat

    excellent speech by solomon. the collapse of the ‘carbon’ market will signal the deathknell of the CAGW ‘story’, but taxpayers will continue to lose out in the meantime:

    29 March: Sid Maher: World cool on Rudd’s clean coal funding
    AUSTRALIAN taxpayers are the only financial backers for Kevin Rudd’s $100 million-a-year global clean coal initiative, as world leaders have failed to match their resounding endorsement of the idea at the G8 meeting last July with a single dollar.
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/world-cool-on-rudds-clean-coal-funding/story-e6frg6nf-1225846623758

    BBC won’t give up easily. here’s an attempt to create a ‘rock star’ out of one of the ‘carbon cowboys’:

    28 March: BBC: Dan Collyns: Peru hails Western carbon offsetting programmes
    But the public has come used to greeting such announcements with indifference.
    There is widespread scepticism about the genuine green credentials of big firms trying to clean up their image in this way – critics say it is inefficient at best, corrupt at worst.
    That may be why Nestle Waters France is betting on the credentials of France’s hottest young environmentalist, Tristan Lecomte, and his carbon management company, The Pure Project, to execute its plan.
    Mr Lecomte, 36, is on his way to becoming a household name in his native France…
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8586617.stm

    what we can all do is:
    turn off or refuse to buy any TV/radio program, newspaper or magazine that promotes CAGW.
    warn producers/editors that any forward planning needs to take into account the public’s scepticism about CAGW.
    demand ‘believers’ defend CAGW and not hide behind the generic ‘climate change’ a fact which is not under dispute.

    a step in the right direction, but still trying to salvage a ‘carbon’ market:
    25 March: NYT: John M. Broder: ‘Cap and Trade’ Loses Its Standing as Energy Policy of Choice
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/science/earth/26climate.html?src=me

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    sunsettommy: # 3

    … am a layman who was able to see the B.S. easily and for YEARS too.
    What excuse does honest but AGW believing scientists have for an excuse of not seeing it?

    It is because you are a layman. If you have an interest in something, but no formal knowledge, your mind is open to anything that is relevant, and you gain your impressions from the totality of what you learn.

    If you are a specialist, then your impressions are bounded by what you already know and accept as fact, so you tend to reject anything that contradicts your previous “knowledge”.

    This is why it is always good to have a non-specialist attend brainstorming exercises, and policy-setting sessions.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Mark Allinson: # 5
    I think the word apostate is preferable to infidel.

    Apostates deny the concept of any religion, whereas the word infidel implies the denial of Islam (and in some cases, Christianity).

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Ike: #17

    In the late ’70′s and early ’80′s, I used a commercial modelling product to analyse electronic and radio circuits. It was called “Sceptre”.

    It was data driven, in that each data field had its own calculating routines and parameters, and we (the programmers) could do pretty much what we wanted in those routines as long as it could be expressed mathematically. It was not rocket science.

    It beggars belief that the GW crew tried to do it all from scratch. The word “Amateurs”, comes to mind.

    00

  • #
    pat

    fiona is resorting to reading the runes!

    29 March: Financial Times: Fiona Harvey: Climate change: The runes of Copenhagen are hard for industry to read
    One indicator that disappointed clean energy companies was the sudden drop in carbon prices under the EU emissions trading scheme, immediately after the summit ended…
    That was a bearish indication that companies would not be persuaded to invest in clean energy, according to Trevor Sikorski, director at Barclays Capital. “I see nothing [in the accord] that should drive investment in low-carbon technology.”
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ee4efe80-3866-11df-aabd-00144feabdc0.html

    00

  • #
    pat

    hmmm! calling maurice newman:

    29 March: Australian: Winning role
    ABC journalist Margot O’Neill is the recipient of the 2010 Donald McDonald ABC scholarship to the Reuters Institute of Oxford. A senior reporter with Lateline, O’Neill has built up an impressive catalogue of investigative work for the program… Her scholarship will see her spend time at the world-renowned Environmental Change Institute to identify, review and deconstruct climate change reporting.
    http://m.theaustralian.com.au/fi186127.htm

    Reuters Institute: Media & the Environment Workshop: Reporting Climate Change
    Making Waves…
    On Friday 26 February a packed audience of 200 people at the Environmental Change Institute heard four of the UK’s leading environment correspondents answer questions from Fiona Fox, director of the Science Media Centre, on the responsibility of the media in ‘Climategate’ (the apparent tinkering with emails at the University of East Anglia), how scientists should engage with the media in countering sceptics, and the reasons for the public’s declining trust in climate science.
    Richard Black from the BBC, David Adam from the Guardian, the FT’s Fiona Harvey, and Ben Jackson from the Sun then answered questions from the audience, who included some top climate scientists from Oxford University keen to know what they had to do to get their message across that none of the basic science was altered by Climategate or the questioning of some of the science in the IPCC reports…
    http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/events/archive/past-conferences-and-lectures/media-the-environment-workshop-reporting-climate-change.html

    00

  • #

    I agree with “the ClimateGate e-mails gave us license to escalate our language. We no longer were constrained so much by the threat of legal action against us. It was clear that most of the ClimateGate subjects would never want to go to court where a discovery of documents would expose their failings to rigorous analysis”. That’s a the reason to get them to court! The question is how? With enough encouragement from sceptics like Craig Loehle, the answer may be here!

    According MacGen’s lawyers the “open” question of whether its licence may be subject to an implied condition to limit emissions to avoid climate change, there is a “very real risk that a breach of such a condition will result in a finding of criminal conduct”! Sure MacGen could argue that there is no such implied condition, but there is already the precedent that led Justice Pain to say “Come again”.

    Despite media suppression of much evidence against AGW, MacGen and its lawyers should know that there is “statistically significant” evidence that all the coal burnt [and forests replaced by farms, grasslands and deserts] by all of humanity between the “Middle Age Warming” and 2006 had not raised “global” temperatures. One peer reviewed proof of this was published in 2007. A copy is attached and its abstract reads:
    Historical data provide a baseline for judging how anomalous recent temperature changes are and for assessing the degree to which organisms are likely to be adversely affected by current or future warming. Climate histories are commonly reconstructed from a variety of sources, including ice cores, tree rings, and sediment. Tree-ring data, being the most abundant for recent centuries, tend to dominate reconstructions. There are reasons to believe that tree ring data may not properly capture long-term climate changes. In this study, eighteen 2000-year-long series were obtained that were not based on tree ring data. Data in each series were smoothed with a 30-year running mean. All data were then converted to anomalies by subtracting the mean of each series from that series. The overall mean series was then computed by simple averaging. The mean time series shows quite
    coherent structure. The mean series shows the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) quite clearly, with the MWP being approximately 0.3°C warmer than 20th century values at these eighteen sites.

    Note that details of the science were disputed. This led to the corrections published in the 2008 paper included in the attached. To my knowledge there are no current or pending disputes that might reduce the statistical significance of the corrections or the conclusions drawn from the corrected evidence. Its abstract reads:
    A climatic reconstruction published in E&E (Loehle, 2007) is here corrected for various errors and data issues, with little change in the results. Standard errors and 95% confidence intervals are added. The Medieval Warming Period (MWP) was significantly warmer than the bimillennial average during most of the period 820 – 1040 AD. The Little Ice Age was significantly cooler than the average during most of 1440 – 1740 AD. The warmest tridecade of the MWP was warmer than the most recent tridecade, but not significantly so.

    00

  • #

    Oops copy not attached. I’ll try to post it later.

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    While Alarmist still freely go about their business, Banks and other organisations push for carbon trading to make even more billions, here in the Hunter Valley producing energy is under attack from militant green activist.

    From Newcastle Morning Herald, Saturday 26th March.

    By JULIEANNE STRACHAN

    CARBON: Bayswater power station.

    A LANDMARK case in the NSW Land and Environment Court, where climate change activists have taken on Macquarie Generation, is expected to be decided in the next two weeks.

    Newcastle based Rising Tide members Peter Gray and Naomi Hodgson have challenged the legality of the amount of carbon pollution emitted by the state’s largest power station at Bayswater.

    The pair are being represented by the NSW Environmental Defenders Office.

    Mr Gray and Ms Hodgson alleged that Bayswater power station was unlawfully releasing large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and harming the environment through its contribution to global warming.

    But Macquarie Generation asked the court to throw the case out yesterday, saying it had lawful authority to produce carbon emissions.

    The court has reserved its judgement on the matter and is expected to deliver a decision within the next fortnight.

    Mr Gray said that if the challenge was allowed to proceed it would go to a full hearing early next year.

    Rising Tide alleges that Bayswater power station is the biggest single point source of CO2 in NSW, emitting 12 to 15 million tonnes of CO2 a year.

    Mr Gray said the emissions were unregulated.

    “This power station is a major contributor to a global problem and should be controlled by strict environmental standards,” he said.

    “The continued unregulated disposal of CO2 into the atmosphere at Bayswater . . . is an affront to any Australian concerned about our nation’s contribution to climate change.”

    00

  • #
    geronimo

    “I think the word apostate is preferable to infidel.”

    “Apostates deny the concept of any religion, whereas the word infidel implies the denial of Islam (and in some cases, Christianity).”

    I believe “heretic”is better. An apostate is someone who renounces a religion, and may do so because they’re converting to another religion, an infidel is someone who isn’t a Muslim, a heretic is someone whose beliefs contradict those of an established religion.

    00

  • #
    Asperamanka

    I imagine a lot of people here have temperature and rainfall records from rural areas of Australia. Some of them might go back a hundred years or more.

    Why not join forces, combine the records? We could demonstrate that there is no warming trend, no drying trend and compare our records with messy Bureau of Meteorolgy records from nearby weather stations.

    Who is up for it?

    00

  • #
    Mia Nony

    HEY!! Lookee here! Does this carry enough weight to be..dare I say … Good News?

    Top Scientists Assess Climate Change Emails
    Full Analysis of Global Warming Scandal

    Dr. Costella’s study has been widely accepted by all sides of the global warming debate as a faultless assessment. Climategate publicly began on November 19, 2009 allegedly pointing to a conspiracy to fraudulently bolster greenhouse gas theory. The British mainstream media, more than any other nation, have widely reported on the scandal.

    The Australian physicist documents, step by step, flawed scientific procedure, over-arching concerns with personal and professional interests and how an elite of climatologists discussed immorally securing ‘research’ funding and evading tax payments. The emails cover correspondence between international climatologists over a 13-year period up to November 2009.

    Does the evidence point to climate crimes?

    Yes, as reported in The Times of London ‘University tried to mislead MPs on climate change e-mails’ (February 27, 2010) referring to the decision of the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

    Only the statute of limitations thwarted criminal charges on breaches of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), while further issues of serious fraud are yet to be decided. Examples of specific quotations most often referred to from those leaked emails include evidence supportive of:

    (1.) Manipulation of evidence:

    “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” [Jones: CRU email 942777075.txt, Nov. 16 1999]

    (2.) Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

    “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.” [Trenberth: CRU email 1255352257.txt, October 12, 2009]

    (3.) Intentional conspiracy to destroy evidence:

    “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.” [Jones: CRU email1212073451.txt May 29, 2008]

    (4.) Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

    “I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago.” [Briffa: CRU email 938018124.txt (Sep. 22, 1999)]

    “I do find the dismissal of the Medieval Warm Period as a meaningful global event to be grossly premature and probably wrong.” [Cook: CRU email 988831541.txt (May 2, 2001)]

    (5.) Suppression of dissent from the peer review process:

    “ I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.” [Jones: CRU email 1047388489.txt March 11, 2003]

    Who Has Been Implicated in the Global Warming Scandal?

    A clique of climate scientists central to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are implicated: Professor Phil Jones, ‘lead conspirator’ in the United Kingdom; Professor Michael Mann, the ‘lead conspirator’ in the United States; Tom Wigley, older ‘conspirator’ who becomes increasingly worried about the unfolding scandal; Keith Briffa, an older conspirator whose ‘blunders lead the others to all but abandon him.’

    Among others also included is Ben Santer, a ‘dangerously arrogant and naive young conspirator’ in the U.S. as well as other experts of varying degrees of complicity and integrity.

    What Fallout Has Occurred Since the Climategate Scandal Broke?

    Dr. Costella concluded that the “climate science” community was a façade and that “their vitriolic rebuffs of sensible arguments of mathematics, statistics, and indeed scientific common sense were not the product of scientific rigor at all, but merely self-protection at any cost.”

    There has been worldwide condemnation for the unethical conduct of the discredited researchers. In the United States a raft of civil lawsuits opposing federal policy based on the alleged fraudulent results of these researchers has ensued. Climate sceptics have called for a moratorium on implemention of any further expensive ecological policies until the courts resolve the matter.

    The IPCC has admitted errors have been made after subsequent revelations known as Glaciergate, Amazongate, Australiagate, Africate, Inquirygate, etc.

    In the United States 16 lawsuits have been filed in opposition to the federal government’s (EPA) environmental regulations premised on the discredited climate science, the most notable by the Peabody Energy Company (PEC). Peabody is the world’s largest private sector coal company and is, in effect, challenging the right of the current federal government to introduce cap and trade regulations by the ‘back door.’ The PEC petition argues,

    “The CRU information reveals that many of the principal scientists who authored key chapters of the IPCC scientific assessments were driven by a policy agenda that caused them to cross the line from neutral science to advocacy.”

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/climategate_analysis.pdf

    http://climate-change.suite101.com/article.cfm/top-scientists-assess-climategate-emails#ixzz0jY1unHgO

    http://climate-change.suite101.com/article.cfm/top-scientists-assess-climategate-emails#ixzz0jY1HYSra

    00

  • #
    Mia Nony

    Quoting H.L. Mencken:

    “The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it.”

    Where do I stand on this? I think this is reminiscent of the focus on children employed by Goebbels. Videos like this enable and encourage often idiotic parents to collude in child abuse, not only by using climate scares as the newest Grimm fairy tale, as underhanded greenwash propaganda for achieving global governance through fear, but by using and exploiting vulnerable children in order to assure that corporations make ongoing billions in profit from the global climate scam.
    Just when you think environmentalists can’t stoop any lower in their quest to try to scare people into their way of thinking, they embrace a new symbol of global warming hysteria. This time, it’s a multimillion-dollar ad campaign by the British government, aimed at the most vulnerable age group, using drowning pets — oh, and a crying bunny and a spooky carbon monster, too.

    Fight the hysteria, visit http://www.noteviljustwrong.com

    I heard that this UK advert was deemed a gross exaggeration and clear misrepresentation of the risk of climate change causing the next Atlantis, and that it has been disallowed, but I am not sure. Any word on this? Now that the damage is already done?

    ACTONCO2 “Bedtime Stories” TV advertisement, October 2009

    http://www.youtube.com/watchv=w62gsctP2gc&feature=player_embedded

    Two Youtube Rebuttals:

    http://www.youtube.com/watchv=mNGHZzuDGf0&feature=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BptZ7CXHziA&feature=related

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Bob Malloy: #30

    It would be good if Macquarie Generation took this on by engaging a reputable, but sceptical, scientist as an expert witness who could question their evidence that carbon dioxide was: a) the only possible cause of global warming; and if not, b) what proportion of the currently observed global warming could actually be attributed to carbon dioxide; and c) what proportion of the entire global emissions of carbon dioxide were emitted by the site in question.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    geronimo: # 31

    “I think the word apostate is preferable to infidel.”
    “Apostates deny the concept of any religion, whereas the word infidel implies the denial of Islam (and in some cases, Christianity).”

    I believe “heretic”is better. An apostate is someone who renounces a religion, and may do so because they’re converting to another religion, an infidel is someone who isn’t a Muslim, a heretic is someone whose beliefs contradict those of an established religion.

    Hmm, let me see …

    apostate: “A person who abandons his or her religious faith or moral allegiance”, is one of the definitions, so I will concede that point. However, it also means: “A person unfaithful to any religious principles or creed or to moral allegiance“, and that was the sense in which I suggested it.

    infidel: “An adherent of a religion other than ones own; from a Christian point of view, a Muslim; from a Muslim point of view, a Christian; and from a Jewish point of view, a Gentile”, so that probably won’t do.

    heretic: “A person who holds an opinion or a doctrine contrary to the accepted doctrine of any subject”. Ah, that’s better.

    So I guess most of us who comment here can be classed as “heretics”? I can live with that.

    10

  • #
    SamG

    The green religion is far from over. While some believers have reverted, many more have joined for a bit of feel-good eco-penance.

    Some don’t see the correlation between non-profit/charity/environmental organizations and the evil leftist agenda.

    00

  • #

    [...] everyone in the climate science field who is concerned with historical temperatures…. cont. – Putting ClimateGate in perspective « JoNova . __________________ ………… …just some thoughts from a nomadic plebeian Bio [...]

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Rereke #35

    It would be even more interesting if they asked the prosecution prove that additional CO2 emissions have a significant and deleterious effect on the environment? None of them have been able to do so as yet…

    As always, the onus of proof is on the alarmists to substantiate their claims with something more material than a set of climate computer models!

    If the defence took this line, they would politicise the case, but there is no way the prosecution would be able to prove their case unless they could rule that the IPCC hem hem) “evidence” is valid. Ultimately the prosecution case would be thrown out because coincidence does not equal causation. This one could be interesting.

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Mia Nony: # 33

    Looks like good news to me …

    But where is the mention of Dr Stephen Schneider? He is, or was, one of the main instigators of using scare tactics and propaganda.

    Oh no, don’t tell me that by night he secretly turns into ….. TEFLON MAN!

    00

  • #
    Keith H

    Jo. It would be worthwhile reprinting the Dec.13 2007 open letter by 100 scientists from many parts of the world to Ban Ki-Moon before the UN Climate Conference in Bali, as all points are still very relevant. Interestingly,our “own” Louis Hissink and Richard S Courtney were signatories.
    It concluded with:

    “The current UN focus on “fighting climate change,” as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme’s Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems.”

    http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002

    00

  • #

    Rereke Whaakaro: So I guess most of us who comment here can be classed as “heretics”? I can live with that.

    I can’t. The word “heretic” (ditto for the words “apostate” and “infidel”) is from the frame of reference of the religious believer. From the frame of reference of this so called “heretic”, the religious believer is psychotic and delusional BECAUSE he rejects reason and embraces faith. It doesn’t matter what brand name the faith is packaged with. Its all detached from reality.

    00

  • #

    This is not really on topic but I want to share.
    I just had the most curious experience of hearing a monologue by Marcus Brigstocke about libel. He is apparently engaged in some campaign against the libel laws in the UK – in the course of his bit he pointed out that freedom of speech and thought are the freedoms that have advanced civilisation.
    It was a curious experience because I heard it on The Science Show hosted by Robyn Williams. And his brief comments did not suggest to me that he saw at all the parallels with Climategate. Hello, Mr Williams? Want to talk about suppression of free speech, do you? Outraged by the quashing of dissent?
    If someone else heard the show I’d like to hear your opinion, and whether or not I misinterpreted the segment. Link here for the program dated 27 March, although the Brigstock piece isn’t listed.

    00

  • #
    Wayne, s. Job

    Mia Nony,
    I am impressed, you are a indeed a rabble rouser of the highest order. Keep up the good work.
    Wayne.

    00

  • #
    LevelGaze

    Sorry to be a wet blanket on the erudite discussion that several of us here are obviously enjoying; but the terms “infidel” “apostate” “heretic” etc. — isn’t this just so much persiflage? Why can’t we be satisfied with “realist”? Personally, I don’t really mind “denier” in the current zeitgeist.

    OFT I know, but (as I saw pointed out on a site I have long forgotten where/when) if there really were such a thing as greenhouse effect then sharp engineers would have noticed it 200 years ago and we would now have had unlimited emissionless energy for yonks, and into the next 4 billion years.

    Just my random late night thoughts. :)

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Furthet Bob’s note on the NSW court case , there is another very interesting on coming up the USA

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/global_warming_on_trial.html

    00

  • #
    Mia Nony

    Apologies for the length of this.

    CRU Groupthink
    It certainly does describe a global climate cult.
    BTW: Does anyone know someone who is now trying to go cold turkey and get out of this climate cult? Would love to hear even any anecdotal testimonials!

    (Canadian site material)

    Rationalizing poor decisions,
    Having an illusion of invulnerability, Maintaining an illusion of unanimity

    IPCC/CRU Self-Deception Through Groupthink

    By Dr. Tim Ball
    Monday, March 29, 2010

    Few understand the extent of corrupted science produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Data was altered, or completely ignored and research deliberately directed to prove their claim that humans were causing global warming.

    People identified in the leaked emails of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were primarily responsible through the Physical Science Basis Report of Working Group I of the IPCC and the Summary for Policymakers (SPM). Politics is clearly the motive for some scientists like James Hansen, Stephen Schneider and others, but this is not so clear for most at the CRU. Which begs the question how and why supposedly intelligent people became involved and continued to participate in such corruption?

    The Group

    Irving Janis developed the concept of Groupthink, which requires unanimity at the expense of quality decisions. “Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups. A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision-making.”

    The CRU/IPCC pattern is a classic example.

    Groupthink

    Here’s a list of some symptoms of groupthink with examples from CRU/IPCC emails and actions.

    Having an illusion of invulnerability.

    Content of the emails is a litany of arrogant invulnerability. In a backhanded way Overpeck provides support for this position because he advised them on Sep 9, 2009 to “Please write all emails as though they will be made public.” They didn’t listen because they believed they were invulnerable.

    Rationalizing poor decisions.

    Jones rationalized the decision to withhold Freedom of Information (FOI) to the University of East Anglia staff on December 3, 2008 as follows, “Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school – the head of school and a few others) became very supportive.”

    Believing in the group’s morality.

    The entire body of emails supports this claim. Rob Wilson wrote on February 21, 2006 “I need to diplomatically word all this. I never wanted to criticise Mike’s work in any way. It was for that reason that I made little mention to it initially.” On May 6, 1999 Mann wrote to Phil Jones, “Trust that I’m certainly on board w/you that we’re all working towards a common goal” and later “I trust that history will give us all proper credit for what we’re doing here.” So do I!
    Conversely, Keith Briffa, who I believe was the whistleblower, battled with Mann and became increasingly alienated from the group. On June 17, 2002 he wrote, “I have just read this letter and I think it is crap. I am sick to death of Mann stating his reconstruction represents the tropical area just because it contains a few (poorly temperature representative) tropical series.”

    Sharing stereotypes which guide the decision.

    This takes the form of unethical comments of practice going without challenge because they were all doing it.

    On September 19, 1996 Funkhouser wrote, “I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that.”

    Exercising direct pressure on others.

    On April 24, 2003 Wigley wrote, “One approach is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their journal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation under the guise of refereed work. I use the word ‘perceived’ here, since whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about—it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts.” They also got James Saiers, editor of Geophysical Research Letters, fired.

    Not expressing your true feelings.

    On the October 14, 2009 Trenberth expresses something to Tom Wigley that none of them ever dared say in public. How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are nowhere close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!”

    Maintaining an illusion of unanimity.

    Briffa struggles to maintain the illusion when he writes to Mann on April 29 2007, “I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same. I worried that you might think I gave the impression of not supporting you well enough while trying to report on the issues and uncertainties.”

    Using mindguards to protect the group from negative information.

    “The idea is that we working climate scientists should have a place where we can mount a rapid response to supposedly ‘bombshell’ papers that are doing the rounds and give more context to climate related stories or events.” This was Mann’s comment to the group about establishment of Realclimate to act as “mindguards”.

    Some of the negative outcomes of groupthink also fit the actions of the CRU/IPCC group.

    Examining few alternatives.

    They narrowed the options by the definition of climate change to only those caused by human activities. Of the three greenhouse gases, almost all the focus is on CO2.

    Not being critical of each other’s ideas.

    Not only were they not critical, but they peer reviewed each other’s work and controlled who they recommended to editors for reviewers. Mann to Jones June 4, 2003 “I’d like to tentatively propose to pass this along to Phil as the “official keeper” of the draft to finalize and submit IF it isn’t in satisfactory shape by the time I have to leave.” On August 5, 2009 Jones wrote to Grant Foster in response to his request for reviewers for an article, “I’d go for one of Tom Peterson or Dave Easterling. To get a spread, I’d go with 3 US, One Australian and one in Europe. So Neville Nicholls and David Parker. All of them know the sorts of things to say – about our comment and the awful original, without any prompting.”

    Not examining early alternatives.

    There was a graph of temperatures drawn by Lamb showing the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and used in the first IPCC Report. It was correct but contradicted their claim of modern warming. As Mann said to Jones on June 4, 2003, “it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back.” They chose to rewrite history.

    Not seeking expert opinion.

    Professor Wegman spoke directly to this problem in his report for the US Senate on the infamous hockey stick graph. “It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community.”

    Being highly selective in gathering information.

    Apart from only looking at human causes, the CRU emails have many examples of data selected to prove their point. Tim Osborn to the group on October 5, 1999 speaks of the issue McIntyre identified of truncated records.
    They go from 1402 to 1995, although we usually stop the series in 1960 because of the recent non-temperature signal that is superimposed on the tree-ring data that we use. On March 19, 2009 Santer wrote to Jones about the Royal Meteorological Society (RMS) asking for data used for a publication. “If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available – raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations – I will not submit any further papers to RMS journals.” On September 27, 2009 Tom Wigley wrote to Phil Jones about a problem with Sea Surface Temperatures (SST), “So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 deg C, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we’d still have to explain the land blip.”

    Not having contingency plans.

    They never expected they would be exposed.
    But they were exposed. Now most can’t believe scientists could ignore or deliberately manipulate data, distort procedures and not have more of them speak out. As Janis explains groupthink, “occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment.” Politicians seem to have the greatest difficulty possibly because they suffer groupthink.

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/21463

    10

  • #
    Mark Allinson

    The term “groupthink” perfectly describes the activities of the postmodern “ultraliberal” crowd who control most of our universities.

    “I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that.”

    “Trust that I’m certainly on board w/you that we’re all working towards a common goal”

    “I trust that history will give us all proper credit for what we’re doing here.”

    These are not scientists, but culture-warriors fighting for political ends.

    00

  • #
    J.Hansford

    The UK Met Office – this is the UK government’s meteorological department – says it will need three years to recreate the data that has been destroyed.

    The “recreate” bit leaves me uneasy!

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I am a layman who was able to see the B.S. easily and for YEARS too.

    What excuse does honest but AGW believing scientists have for an excuse of not seeing it?

    sunsettommy,

    They ain’t got no excuse!

    00

  • #
    Pete H

    yonason:
    March 29th, 2010 at 5:13 am

    Thanks for the online link. Saved me having to do some work today :-)

    00

  • #
    Mia Nony

    I agree, Graeme Bird.
    Thought you might want to read this, though media is a source to take with a grain of salt:

    Tuesday, March 30, 2010

    James Lovelock: Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change

    In his first in-depth interview since the theft of UEA emails, the scientist blames inertia and democracy for lack of action

    Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change from radically impacting on our lives over the coming decades. This is the stark conclusion of James Lovelock, the globally respected environmental thinker and independent scientist who developed the Gaia theory.

    It follows a tumultuous few months in which public opinion on efforts to tackle climate change has been undermined by events such as the climate scientists’ emails leaked from the University of East Anglia (UEA) and the failure of the Copenhagen climate summit.

    “I don’t think we’re yet evolved to the point where we’re clever enough to handle a complex a situation as climate change,” said Lovelock in his first in-depth interview since the theft of the UEA emails last November. “The inertia of humans is so huge that you can’t really do anything meaningful.”

    One of the main obstructions to meaningful action is “modern democracy”, he added. “Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”

    Lovelock, 90, believes the world’s best hope is to invest in adaptation measures, such as building sea defences around the cities that are most vulnerable to sea-level rises. He thinks only a catastrophic event would now persuade humanity to take the threat of climate change seriously enough, such as the collapse of a giant glacier in Antarctica, such as the Pine Island glacier, which would immediately push up sea level.

    “That would be the sort of event that would change public opinion,” he said. “Or a return of the dust bowl in the mid-west.

    Another Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report won’t be enough. We’ll just argue over it like now.” The IPCC’s 2007 report concluded that there was a 90% chance that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are causing global warming, but the panel has been criticised over a mistaken claim that all Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2030.

    Lovelock says the events of the recent months have seen him warming to the efforts of the “good” climate sceptics: “What I like about sceptics is that in good science you need critics that make you think: ‘Crumbs, have I made a mistake here?’ If you don’t have that continuously, you really are up the creek. The good sceptics have done a good service, but some of the mad ones I think have not done anyone any favours. You need sceptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic.”

    Lovelock, who 40 years ago originated the idea that the planet is a giant, self-regulating organism – the so-called Gaia theory – added that he has little sympathy for the climate scientists caught up in the UEA email scandal. He said he had not read the original emails – “I felt reluctant to pry” – but that their reported content had left him feeling “utterly disgusted”.

    “Fudging the data in any way whatsoever is quite literally a sin against the holy ghost of science,” he said. “I’m not religious, but I put it that way because I feel so strongly. It’s the one thing you do not ever do. You’ve got to have standards.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock-climate-change

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Lovelock, 90, believes the world’s best hope is to invest in adaptation measures, such as building sea defences around the cities that are most vulnerable to sea-level rises.

    At first I was wondering about finding a building contractor who can guarantee steady construction at a rate of 2 millimeters per year. Then I started thinking about the local council roadworks.

    He thinks only a catastrophic event would now persuade humanity to take the threat of climate change seriously enough …

    I’ll agree with that, predictions of catastrophe are always more convincing when they do actually happen.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    One of the main obstructions to meaningful action is “modern democracy”, he added. “Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”

    Scary scary words…………..
    This is what we are up against!

    00

  • #
    Mark Allinson

    “Lovelock, who 40 years ago originated the idea that the planet is a giant, self-regulating organism – the so-called Gaia theory …”

    What sort of a contradiction is this to the view that the all-wise “self-regulating” Gaia produced from Her own wisdom stupid humans who were not only destroying Her, but were “too stupid” to correct their errors?

    If Gaia is stupid enough to generate a crop of stupid creatures who would do Her in – She deserves the consequences of her productions, I say.

    00

  • #

    [...] Climategate confirmed our worst fears – AGW is simply climate porn!, Lame stream media has hysterics over earth hour whilst the populace couldn’t be bothered with the propaganda!, Auditing the humorous! [...]

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Further to my earlier post,re Environmental Radicals suing Macquarie Generation:

    It seems this is going to be the new green attack.

    Global Warming Advocates Threaten Blizzard of Lawsuits

    Environmentalists, unable to squeeze “cap and trade” rules through the U.S. Senate, have a new strategy for combating what they believe is man-made global warming:

    They’re going to sue.

    They’re revving up their briefs and getting ready to shop for judges who will be sympathetic to their novel claim that the companies they believe contribute to global warming are a “public nuisance.”

    The environmentalists allege that individual companies are responsible for climate change because they have emitted greenhouse gases during the course of their operations. Those gases, they say, have “harmed” them by fostering Hurricane Katrina, eroding the shorelines of America’s coasts and causing global warming.

    see more. http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/29/global-warming-advocates-threaten-blizzard-lawsuits/

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    “I believe “heretic”is better.”

    Better than “HEREITC” is “WELL-ARMED CLIMATE REATIONAIST.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Graeme @14 How did I miss this one! LMAO

    Now why don’t I think I was being unfair to say that the ground data was fraudulent? Why?

    So we have the balloon data. We have the satellite data. Both of which agree with each-other. Convergent evidence. Good data. If the two sets of data were not good data they would not confirm each-other.

    Then we come to the ground data aggregations. And suddenly we find that “One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn’t belong. Can you tell me which thing is not like the others………..”

    So why did I insist that the ground data was fraud before the emails were released? Why was I so ho-hum about the emails? Why did I lose my temper at Sincliar when he denied that it was fraud?

    Somtimes you’ve just got to leave these things to Sesame Street. Someimes you’ve just got to let the cookie monster be your teacher.

    One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn’t belong. Can you tell me which thing is not like the others………..”

    Talk about brainwashing….I had that tune in my head instantly when reading that.

    Thanks

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Global Warming Advocates Threaten Blizzard of Lawsuits

    Bob,

    Might be a good thing. They’ll have to put their case and its supporting evidence out in public and then some friend of the court will submit a brief that shoots a hole in global warming that a Nimitz Class aircraft carrier could drive through. There’s no better disinfectant than the cold hard light of day. Hansen has been called a fraud and a liar publically and then dared to sue. He hasn’t because he knows his junk science can’t stand up under examination.

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Rereke Whaakaro # 35

    I agree totally, It would be good to know if the likes of Bob Carter, Stewart Franks and others would make themselves available to contest the accepted science. It just may be whats needed to bring the falsehood of scientific consensus into the pages of the Main Stream Media.

    On past performance I feel the like of James Hansen will give his time freely to prosecute the case, so a strong team will be needed to counter the radicals.

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Roy Hogue: # 60.

    See post at 61.

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Roy Hogue:

    At #179 you suggest that “law suites” may benefit AGW sceptics because ‘warmers’ will
    “have to put their case and its supporting evidence out in public and then some friend of the court will submit a brief that shoots a hole in global warming that a Nimitz Class aircraft carrier could drive through.”

    Sorry, but that is not true.

    Law Courts assess the credibility of opinions. They do not have the technical expertise to assess scientific arguments.
    So, Law Courts assess the apparent credibilty of witnesses and decide which witness to believe. Governments have appointed AGW-advocates to positions of authority, and a Law Court will alway agree that such witnesses present the ‘science’ that should be accepted.

    For example, James Hansen is head of NASA GISS. He attended a criminal trial in the UK where a group of people were being tried for deliberately damaging a coal-fired power station. Hansen said the CO2 emissions from the power station were doing much more harm than stopping the power station could do.

    UK law says that it is lawful to damage personal property as a method to prevent greater harm. For example, a person is entitled to smash a door that is preventing rescue of a child from a burning building and – according to UK law – the owner of the door has no right to object to the door being smashed.

    Hansen’s testimony is not sustainable by scientific argument: there is no possibility that the power station is making (or could make) significant contribution to AGW even if the ‘worst case’ scenario for AGW were correct.

    But Law Courts do not consider the merit of scientific argument. They only consider which expert they will agree is ‘right’.

    And Hansen’s authority as an expert on AGW is proclaimed by the fact that the US Government has appointed him as head of NASA GISS. So, the Court decided – as it must – that Hansen’s evidence was the most credible ‘science’. And there is no AGW sceptic in a similar position of authority whose testimony could dispute that (governments have removed all similar experts from their jobs for disputing AGW; e.g. Henk Tennekes).

    So, on the basis of Hansen’s testimony, the Court decided to acquit the people who damaged the power station.

    Indeed, another case was won by AGW sceptics but they only won because they understood that Law Courts only consider which expert the Court will agree is ‘right’: Law Courts do not assess scientific evidence.

    The winning of that case prevented Mr Gore’s science fiction horror movie being shown in schools without explanation to the children that the movie is political propoganda. The government wanted to distribute the movie in schools as being a presentation of the scientific facts. But a UK High Court ruled that the government could not do that because the movie exagerated at least eleven statements by the UN Integovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    In this case the Court accepted that the IPCC is the expert authority that should be believed and, therefore, that Mr Gore was a lesser expert so his presentation in his movie should not be believed.

    Simply, scientific evidence only consists of empirical facts but legal evidence only consists of opinions.

    So, AGW sceptics would always lose a legal case that disputed AGW because governments have ‘stacked the deck’ by appointing AGW-advocates to positions that give them supreme authority as ‘expert witnesses’.

    Indeed, I am holding in my hand the full Report of the UK Parliamentary Select Committee investigation of ‘climategate’ (the Select Committee has kindly sent me two copies). It is very obvious that this Report represents a legal – and not a scientific – understanding of ‘evidence’.

    Richard

    00

  • #

    [...] Nova puts Climategate into perspective, and yes, it’s your weekly must read [...]

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Bob Malloy,

    Then there’s Richard Courtney’s opinion at 63.

    I can only see one of two things happening here in the U.S. The courts do some honest work to evaluate the situation and decide on the basis of the evidence or there will eventually be trouble, by which I mean violence. I dread the thought but anger is growing already over the healthcare monstrosity and then if cap-and-trade-tax gets going something is going to give. I dread the thought of it but I see too much anger already as I said.

    I hope I can avoid it.

    00

  • #

    [...] Martin Gravel signe un nouveau billet à titre d’invité, cette fois en traduisant un bilan sur le ClimateGate, par JoNova. [...]

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    I fear that the AGW and UN IPCC should if ‘it’ be shown or proven in a court of law to be fraudulently based, it depends on the prosecution $$$’s to pursue it.

    Those who have invested in green energy and particularly CCT’s and I believe it is trillions of pounds,Euros and dollars, they are not going to see those investments disappear and be devalued.

    I am thinking how we can not only avoid this but actually enhance it? As a conciliation between AGW warmists and sceptics.

    Give me a few mins or hours to think more clearly on this.

    00

  • #

    [...] Climategate confirmed our worst fears – AGW is simply climate porn!, Lame stream media has hysterics over earth hour whilst the populace couldn’t be bothered with the propaganda!, Auditing the humorous! AKPC_IDS += "4633,"; [...]

    00

  • #

    J. Hansford @ 49

    Sorry for the late reply on this, but I’ve been rather busy of late. I too am equally concerned about this. In the UK Daily Telegraph on the 25th of Feb there was a report by their environmental correspondent

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7309688/Met-Office-to-look-again-at-global-warming-records.html

    So it was reported that the Met Office was going to “independently” review 160 years of temperature records. However the tone of the article sounds like they’ve already decided the conclusion before starting, as “it will provide a more detailed picture of global warming”, whereas we seem to be cooling, and “it will verify existing records”. Could those be the same records have have been manipulated and tortured until they have confessed, and for which the original unadjusted data sets have been “lost”? The cynic in me says that going back just 160 years for the start point is also a very convenient start point if you statistically want to show a warming trend as it yet again allows them to ignore the “inconvenient truths” of the Medieval Warming period and Little Ice Age, which ended roughly 160 years ago.

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    That’s like saying at 4 pm the tide went out, and at 11pm a king tide will occur (when there is a full moon) the waves will encroach further inland than known in the last month, due to global
    warming.

    Our planet is an Ice Planet, we are experiencing an interglacial,
    as we tend to move towards another mini ice age, a normal cooling event will occur. For all we know human activities might hold one
    off a few more hundred years than before? I don’t think it will but examining only 160 years will prove nothing other than the planet is warming and will it prove we are cooling again.

    Also the guardian is running an article on South Africa encouraging CO2 emitting industries over to them, to avoid Carbon
    emission taxes. So much for carbon trading again eh. One steel
    company left England, 1700 were left unemployed, went somewhere
    I can’t recall, and paid 2.2 billion pounds in Carbon credits for the move.

    00

  • #

    Bush Bunny @ 70

    Re the steel company closing, that is the Corus works in Redcar, and as usual Mr Booker has something interesting to say about it.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6798052/What-links-the-Copenhagen-conference-with-the-steelworks-closing-in-Redcar.html

    And

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6890839/The-questions-Dr-Pachauri-still-has-to-answer.html

    These show the absurdity of carbon trading and the impact of the loss of Europe’s largest steel blast furnace is yet another loss of manufacturing capability in the UK that we probably come to rue one day. It’s almost as if the UK Government is hell bent on having nothing other than hot air to trade with the reset of the world……

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Thank you Derek .

    The former opposition leader Mr Malcolm Turnbull MP has always been a supporter of AGW. He announced after he lost the opposition (Liberal) leadership to budgie smuggler’s Tony Abbott MP, that he would back the ALP Governments ETS bill at the next sitting and cross the floor. Mr Turnbull was THE AUSTRALIAN director of Goldman Sachs, and is thought to have investments in Carbon credits? Not proven though, just a rumor. (Although I requested MP’s to find out if this was true, I got no replies, so far? Because MPs have to declare their personal investment or holdings portfolio, so to avoid any misunderstandings or a suggestion of a conflict of interests?) Certainly he went to meet Goldman Sachs in London in October last year, and then announced as leader to the coalition that he would not tolerate any of his party’s MPS not to support the ETS scheme. Bit of a bully eh? Or had he been told by Goldman Sachs the leading Investment bank in CCT’s and Green energy investments, they were in trouble if the Cap ‘n Trade or ETS bills were not passed OR a treaty be agreed with at the Copenhagen summit? No ETS and carbon credit trading would plunge in value, as they have.

    WELL MALCOLM TURNBULL HAS RESIGNED OR WILL NOT BE STANDING AGAIN FOR HIS RICH WENTWORTH ELECTORATE IN THIS POSH SYDNEY ELECTORATE.

    Now the Met office in UK, have stated they will now go over their stats regarding the last 160 years of so called climate change.

    Will they admit that since the last mini ice age, temps have warmed (thank God!) and are now cooling again? No – it is like saying that the Medieval Warm Period and the Mini Ice Age never
    existed to compare today’s temperature swings. You can not have a scientific report on global temps without including what has happened in the long past. If not accepting we are naturally an ice planet, and have been for millions of years. Warmer interglacial periods happen, but eventually we plunge again into
    either a mini ice age or worse a full glacial period, that will eventually kill us off for our inability to grow enough food.

    Ignoring what has happened in say the last 2000 years, It is like saying. “Last Tues sea levels rose, encroaching the main street of Cairns,NT. And this is a reason for believing in AGW? As the previous month this didn’t happen… point?

    King tides happen during a lunar full moon, every month, and actually Cairns does have sea water running down the gutters of the main street at this time! A natural TIDAL happening.

    If humans think they can effect the climate, then let them start
    doing stupid things? Without any knowledge of real natural climate change one UK company reckons as volcanic eruptions do cool the climate, the solution is to seed clouds with sulphates
    to do the same… this is utter madness… cooling the climate
    from volcanic eruptions (particularly large ones) cools the temps from the amount of dust and ash spewed into the upper atmosphere. Seeding clouds with sulphates will create acid rain.
    Are they mad!

    I wonder how much money that company got for delivering a solution to global warming… shoot the lot! Or rather put them on an island with Al Gore, Pachauri and his TERI group, and ask them to live without electricity (go back to nature and be Green).

    And give up meat as methane produced by farm animals also warms
    the planet… only in your imagination Al and Pachauri. And need
    to make dollars or pounds, or Euros robbing UK and others of their
    secondary industries and bringing them to others. South Africa
    is now into it as well.

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Incidentally, I am an environmentalist. I do believe in sustainability and there is a lot we can improve our various environments.

    Certainly by our land use…(I am studying my Diploma in Organic Agricultural Production, I have my Cert IV in Ag.Organic production. BA majoring in Archaeology and Palaeanthropology too, when we studied paleo climates etc, comparing them with modern day environments including a unit in Earth in Crisis? Archaeology of Land use, and Archaeology in communications that compared climate with human progress from hominids Australopithicines to modern humans) For now we are stuck with electricity and petrol driven transport as the life blood of any developed country…In fact as an equine lover owning a car is cheaper than caring for a horse? If CO2 (not pollution a different scenario) doesn’t cause as a Greenhouse gas any climate change via global warming, why tax it… when we could be getting a lot cooler in the next 1000 years? On and off of course? However, one point that was considered possibly and its true, human activity does enhance CO2,
    not by much, but could actually hold off a more severe cooling
    period.

    James Hansen was in Australia during March to promote his book. Not much media coverage was given to his visit for reasons I do not understand as he was Al Gore’s chief scientific adviser with his mate Stephen Schneider both of them gave info to the UN IPCC
    scientific report. Stephen during the mid 1970s was screaming
    another ice age was imminent. Changed his mind though, and his data was supplied by a computer model program designed by guess who? James Hansen. (This is available if you have a few hours to spend on U Tube).

    Recently Hansen is reported to have saying Australia should go nuclear and clean energy supplies don’t work? And Australia should be the first to legalize ETS bills.

    The problem with nuclear is that during 2003, France had a heat wave an unusual 40C was recorded. As did most of western Europe.

    This isn’t unusual in Australia, I was in Sydney during the mid to late 1970s and was attending as a steward to a dog show in Penrith. We recorded 43C in the shade. Several dogs dropped dead from heat exhaustion. Handlers and dogs were taking dips fully furred and clothed in the nearby river. A freak heat wave that occurs every where once in a while?

    I was suffering from a hangover as it was! I drank heaps of soft drinks, went back to my ring before the judge, and tried to refresh my makeup, and my lipstick melted over my chin! On the way home we must have passed 40 cars with hoods up as they had overheated.

    Back to Paris and France in 2003. The nuclear reactors were under
    stress too from the heat. A reactor needs 200,000,000 liters a day to keep it cool. Where the hell is Australia going to find
    that water supply, not our underground water aquifers, they are not renewable. Anyway, one reactor at least was under stress from the heat, for safety standards only could stand 50C before being shut down, it reached 48C on its outer walls.

    Now I don’t think nuclear would suit Australia with our higher temps. Or water supplies. And there is principle believer in
    AGW spouting off regarding his ideology that nuclear is the way to go and clean energy doesn’t work? Is this man either demented
    or under the grip of the Carbon credit investors. Or feels he has to change camp as his previous AGW might be seen in years to come
    as bad science?

    Get behind me Satan, thoust name is James Hansen (and Al Gore, Phil Jones, vegan Pachauri, Michael Mann, and Tom Cobberly and all AGW promoters!) You have given the field of science a very bad name!

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    This is good taken off An Honest Climate Debate blog. Titled …

    ‘After climategate, Should Savvy Investors Short Carbon Credits (PJM exclusive).’

    http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=83734

    Circulate wide and far my friends, to media and politicians in your country.

    10