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

UK Parliamentary Report busts all climate scientists

The UK Parliamentary Committee was always going to be a whitewash. They put no skeptics on the committee; they interviewed no skeptics; they didn’t ask Steven McIntyre to speak. The chairman was the “impartial” Phil Willis, who had already made up his mind in January and announced it in the Telegraph:

“There are a significant number of climate change deniers, who are basically using the UEA emails to support the case this is poor science that has been changed or at worst manipulated. We do not believe this is healthy and therefore we want to call in the UEA so the public can see what they are saying”

It’s no wonder the committee made a spin-like press release with wishy-washy weasel words. What’s amazing is that under the spin, they can’t help but bust all of modern climate science.

The UK report: [press release]

“The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the Committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community but that those practices need to change.

The translation:

We were looking in the wrong spot. We don’t think Phil ought to get busted for just doing what all the other sloppy, biased scientists do. He did hide data, but so does everyone else. The whole of climate science has bogus practices that need to change.

It’s official: common practices across all climate science are so poor they need to change.

The UK Report:

Even if the data that CRU used were not publicly available—which they mostly are—or the methods not published—which they have been—its published results would still be credible:… [para 51]

Translation:

We here in the once-Great British Isles are now happy to accept getting most of the data instead of the full complete set. From now on, we will also accept most of the receipts for your tax returns instead of the original copies, and we will accept most of the receipts of government ministers on working trips to Barbados. Near enough is good enough. With trillions of dollars at stake, it’s no time to get fussy.

The UK Report

[T]he results from CRU agree with those drawn from other international data sets; in other words, the analyses have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified.

Translation:

The results of the EAU agree with data sets around the world that are also sloppy, incomplete, unverifiable, and by NASA’s own email disclosures, even worse than the EAU’s. This meets the standards of the British Government.

Memo to the people of birthplace of the Industrial Revolution and the home of Newton: As all your trusted traditions and standards of excellence fade into mediocrity, and you give your disposable income to Goldman Sachs, the UK government hopes you will bear it with a stiff upper lip and no backbone at all.

Let’s be clear people. We don’t need a committee to tell us that a scientist who makes statements like these is deceitful:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick … to hide the decline.

Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith regarding the latest IPCC report? Keith will do likewise. …Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

There were thousands of e-mails, but we don’t need thousands. They are old news to skeptics, but we need to repeat the ones that matter in letters to editors, phone calls to friends, messages to ministers, and blog comments. Imagine if the words above came from a politician about the national budget how they would not be front page news. Imagine how the public would react. Count the days it would take before he was sacked. Thanks to carbon trading, this is is the national budget. Worse, it’s an international trading scheme.

We are supposed to trust these scientists. They have lost the global data sets. We don’t need to say any more. There is no recovering from that one simple point.

We don’t need a committee to tell us that this is bogus, and nor do the public. The citizens of the free world just need to hear the quotes. They understand that when someone hides a decline, there is no other interpretation. The researcher is concealing something he doesn’t want you to see.

Here’s how it works in government-run climate science “results”:

If the results don’t work the way you want, you can adjust them.

If people want to check those results, you can lose them.

If you get caught losing and adjusting them, you can always count on the committee results to whitewash it.


ADDENDUM

Wait until you hear this.

There is a second inquiry into ClimateGate and Andrew Orlowski has discovered that the man in charge, Lord Oxburgh, is also a director of GLOBE, the Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment.

The peer leading the second Climategate enquiry at the University of East Anglia serves as a director of one of the most powerful environmental networks in the world, according to Companies House documents – and has failed to declare it.

James Delingpole and Bishop Hill have the wrap on the conflicts of interest and power plays in the second committee, and how the GLOBE company was set up to avoid FOI’s. It’s more brazen than you can imagine…It’s an organisation of legislators run as a private company, and funded by…wait for it…”International Organisations, Governments, Parliamentary Bodies and Industry, both financially and politically, with particular acknowledgement to United Nations, The Global Environment Facility, The World Bank, European Commission, the Governments of Canada and Great Britain, the Senate of Brazil and Globe Japan.”

In 2007, it had a budget of £850,000 and the 2007 accounts also refer to creating “a forum for legislators and business leaders to discuss the 2012 climate agreement, illegal logging and related issues”. What 2012 climate agreement?

CORRECTION:

Phillip #4 points out that I was conglomerating two different enquiries. I wrote:

They tried to put people on the committee like Phillip Campbell, who had already pronounced it was a done deal and ClimateGate a non-event.

But Phillip Cambell was to have been on the Sir Muir Russell inquiry. The HoC inquiry chaired by Phil Willis was made up of MPs. Thanks to Phillip for the correction.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
UK Parliamentary Report busts all climate scientists, 10.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/y9plttl

77 comments to UK Parliamentary Report busts all climate scientists

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Good Morning Jo,

    I am glad that your addendum was dated 2nd April – a day earlier and I would not have believed it!

    The main story is a good piece of decomposition – nicely done. You can see where the English expression “pompous ass” comes from.

    00

  • #

    Have you seen how ABC reports the story?
    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2862717.htm
    It’s a whitewash of a whitewash!

    00

  • #
    pat

    wow!

    Bishop Hill: Blimey. Peter Webster’s comments in the Der Spiegel article are
    quite something, aren’t they?
    While amateur climatologist McIntyre spent years begging in vain for the raw
    data, Webster eventually managed to convince Jones to send them to him. He
    is the only scientist to date who has been given access to the data. “To be
    honest, I’m shocked by the sloppy documentation,” Webster told SPIEGEL:

    – Unnoticed by the public, Webster has spent several months searching for
    inconsistencies in the Jones curve. For example, it has been known for some
    time that there are noticeable jumps in ocean temperature readings. The
    reason for the inconsistencies is that, beginning in the 1940s, water
    temperature was no longer measured in buckets filled with seawater, but at
    the intake valves for the water used to cool ship engines.
    But when he analyzed Jones’s data, Webster discovered suspiciously similar
    jumps in temperature — but on land. “Water buckets can’t explain this,”
    says Webster….
    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/4/1/der-spiegel.html

    00

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    Jo, You are mixing up the inquiries. Philip Campbell was to have been on the Sir Muir Russell inquiry. The HoC inquiry chaired by Phil Willis was made up of MPs.

    Incidentally, some of the evidence for the Russell inquiry is now published at http://www.cce-review.org/Evidence.php

    00

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    Oh and there are three inquiries. The first is the HoC one chaired by Phil Willis.
    The second is the Sir Muir Russell one for UEA. The third is the Lord Oxburgh one for the Royal Society.

    00

  • #
    Treeman

    Jo, It’s more than a whitewash it’s ecofacism at it’s best. The de-natzification of Kurt Waldheim, his tenure as UN Secretary General and election as president of Austria are demonstrative of the depths ecofacists will plumb to protect their faith. William Walter Kay’s summary says it all for me: “Studying UN environmentalist efforts is an education on how large and institutionalized environmentalism has become. The image persists of environmentalism as an earnest, idealist grassroots protest movement. This is a media myth. True, the movement has its shock troops, its extremists, its radical flank, but these people are an exploitable flock amidst a much larger organizational field. The modern environmental movement encompasses several hundred state bureaucracies, over a thousand intergovernmental bodies and UN agencies, and tens of thousands of non-profit societies. The movement has built a constituency in the wind and solar power industries, in the international chemical cartel, in eco-tourism, in organic farming and food distribution, in environmental law firms, and in tens of thousands of other for-profit businesses. The movement has colonized the board rooms of scores of mass media firms, hundreds of philanthropic foundations and has established beach-heads in multiple faculties in every university. In spite of this, it retains crucial features of a social movement: it represents a marginalized solidarity network grasping for power”

    00

  • #

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Debra Aubin. Debra Aubin said: UK Parliamentary Report busts all climate scientists: JoNova http://bit.ly/aA7dy7 #agw #globalwarming #climategate [...]

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Wouldn’t it be nice if we could be as sure that eventually they will all hang them selves through their arrogance,(That’s holier than thou scientist, inept or corrupt politicians and the IPCC.), as we were of the outcome of this inquiry. Oh I forgot to include the likes of the ABC and their go to Preacher Clive Hamilton and the ABC team of disciples.

    00

  • #
    Amr

    I am shocked , truly shocked.
    Amr

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    “What 2012 climate agreement?”
    You may find out more about this if you search these words without quotes:
    BUILDING 2012 UNILATERAL GOVERN REGIME FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT
    If that does not work just add the word BILLION.
    There you will find the rest of this sentence:
    “Industrialised nations must take the lead by making deep emission cuts of ……..95% by 2050.”
    Too hard? just go under here.

    00

  • #
    Joe Spencer

    …..the 2007 accounts also refer to creating “a forum for legislators and business leaders to discuss the 2012 climate agreement, illegal logging and related issues”. What 2012 climate agreement?

    5 years hence often seems a realistic enough timescale for realising pie-in-the-sky notions.
    The unaccountable recent cooling ‘though, possibly forced their hand into going for it sooner, in a desperate now or never bid at Copenhagen, before people began to notice.

    Thankyou Lord Monckton for exposing that Draft Treaty for establishing a One World Global Centralist Dictatorship.

    00

  • #
    Dave N

    @Rod McLaughlin:

    I don’t even bother reading Clive Hamilton any more, because he’s the epitome of hypocrisy. In this case however I read the article and I’m guessing your point is that he neglected to mention exactly what Jo is pointing out here, ie that the practices of climate scientists are very poor.

    So no surprises from Clive, really.

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Well done Jo. ( you’ll be accussed of cherry picking by some idiots. I’d call it an executive summary ).
    I’ve been thinking about this inquiry and some of the comments Willis has made afterwards. I think it has been such a rushed and poor job that most people will see through it , if they take any interest in it. ( I think a lot of the public are so sick of the issue and because it will hit their pocket they don’t trust the scientists , the media and the politicians ).
    Willis has made some amazilingly stupid comments ( even for a politician ) such as emphasizing how quick they did it , only one day of hearings , not considering key submissions because others did not raise the issue and having to get the report out before they were kicked out ( referring to the election ).

    I think the other two inquiries could be more “damaging”.

    With regard to the 2012 agreement the following is a key paper discussed in Bali at the end of February –it is easy to see where the UN wants to go.

    http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/022510_greeneconomy.pdf

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Rod McLaughlin @ 2:
    Caught that yesterday and the comments weren’t up yet. I fired a few volleys at the blatant ignorance this morning, especially the Fratelli *bleep*.

    Is 2012 the AR5 deadline?

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Karmakaze: sounds like this is for you
    How to strangle a climate skeptic [VIDEO]
    http://www.grist.org/article/2010-03-31-how-to-strangle-a-climate-skeptic-video/
    have a laugh and don’t get too evangelical; typical of alarmist groupthink

    00

  • #
    Treeman

    This whitewash pales in comparison to whitewashing after WW2 The two brushovers do however have a common thread, the UN. During Waldheim’s tenure, the UN accelerated its environmental agenda to the point that

    environmentalism has become institutionalized. The image of environmentalism as an earnest, idealist grassroots protest movement is a media myth. The movement has built a constituency in the wind and solar power industries, in the international chemical cartel, in eco-tourism, in organic farming and food distribution, in environmental law firms, and in tens of thousands of other for-profit businesses. It has colonized the board rooms of scores of mass media firms, hundreds of philanthropic foundations and has established beach-heads in multiple faculties in every university. In spite of this, it retains crucial features of a social movement: it represents a marginalized solidarity network grasping for power. William Walter Kay

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    “You got thousands of emails and ALL you could find was some MINOR BULLSHIT, not one of which DISPROVES THE SCIENCE!”

    Why would you expect to find an email that “disproved the science”. We are all in aggreement with the science in the climate empiricist camp. With climate empiricism one is only interested in the evidence and various theories which may help explain what is actually going on.

    The last thing one wishes to do is to disprove the science. Our job is to try and get enough people fired so that the frauds stop lying about the science to the public.

    While you are here fella, have you got some evidence that could justify this racket?

    00

  • #
    Owen Morgan

    Talking about enquiries (as in the popular phrase, “helping the police with their enquiries”), the GLOBE company likes to employ legislators. Among its current stable are two UK Labour MPs, David Chaytor and Elliot Morley, both of whom recently appeared in the dock at the City of Westminster Magistrates Court, charged with theft by false accounting. The cases continue.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Absolutely Off Topic, but does anybody know what has happened to TWAKI?

    He seems to have fallen off the planet.

    At least he is not visible from where I am sitting.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Kharmakaze

    From the words:

    Kharma: In Indian philosophy, the total effect of a person’s actions, both mental and physical, on his or her existence.

    Kaze: From the Japanese word for wind.

    English translation: Nothing but [hot?] air?

    00

  • #
    Mohib

    I’m getting the feeling that the AGW camp is regrouping and gearing up to crank up the machine again. But first they’ve got to get the deck cleaned and make sure the press have all the “official” talking points to shoot down anytime CRU is raised.

    I would not assume the AGW camp are going to roll over and play dead over — there’s just too much money at stake in the climate science funding, trading, green technologies, etc.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I’m reminded of my father’s great dislike for politics. He dissected the word this way: poly, meaning many and tics, meaning those little biting insects no one wants to have around.

    It seems that all it takes to make this a good description is a challenge to their honesty and integrity. How easily do they sell their self-respect? Let me count the ways.

    And the rest follow in kind like little lemmings.

    00

  • #
  • #
    wilbert robichaud

    Desmutblog is having a field day with the gloating ..no science just gloating from non scientist Jim Hoggan. “Phil Jones Exonerated by British House of Commons”

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    “They have lost the global data sets”
    They aren’t the only ones. It looks like NASA lost it too.
    “NASA was able to put a man on the moon, but the space agency can’t tell you what the temperature was when it did. By its own admission, NASA’s temperature records are in even worse shape than the besmirched Climate-gate data.”
    From Fox news HERE March 30, 2010

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    “I’m getting the feeling that the AGW camp is regrouping and gearing up to crank up the machine again.”

    Right. There is no ending this racket, when it snows in Sydney in the summertime. We have to fight this thing differently.

    00

  • #
    janama

    Interesting interview with Piers Corbyn, Astrophysicist, climate sceptic and founder of WeatherAction – http://www.weatheraction.com/ – on weather forecasting.

    the interviewer is the wonderful Irish reporter Fintan Dunne of breakfornews.com

    It’s all about the causes of weather, the sun’s magnetic cycles and the ability to predict future weather which Piers is proving to be extremely good at.

    http://fintandunne.com/audio/BeautifulTruth-10-03-31.mp3 16meg mp3 file.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/03/depressing.html

    Before we all get too elated, read this. The last two paragraphs are particularly chilling.

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Thanks a lot, Mark (#26), for pointing to North’s article. Very true, and really nothing new I’m afraid – a lot of the argument has been misdirected for years.

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Graeme (#24)… “We have to fight this thing differently”

    Any thoughts on what this might look like? Gosh, I hope it doesn’t get real ugly.

    00

  • #

    Amr @ 8
    I am shocked , truly shocked.
    You and Inspector Renault together.

    00

  • #
    Joe

    Politicians love a gullable society. Control the media until all the decisions are in place of new programs and tie up trillions of dollars so that these programs will cost a great deal more if you try to get rid of them in lawsuits and court costs.
    Politicans know the science is garbage. The alterative would ruin the market place that is worldwide established and interactive.
    Religion showed a frame work of how to control the masses by using the theory of a higher being. This framework goes back centuries even though it is slowly falling apart. But billions still follow this one way or another.
    Understanding true science or even investing in understanding how our planet and solar system works is not an option unless it is government controlled. NASA created this system that unless you recieve a government grant, you cannot talk with any scientist. Using the excuse of “It might interfere with the current competition for scientific programs”. Peer Review is only for the like minded and anyone is not in this loop no matter how well researched and correct. Will not be allowed to publish or be looked at.
    Education has left us with physicists and scientists that have no room for truth or alternatives. If it does not coincide with the current theories, then it must not be true.
    If you think climate science is flawed, then you have not taken a good look at the rest of science.
    Looking for the truth and answers are a real eye opener of how close minded science has become. No matter how big or small the mistake science has been manipulated to, no one wants to know.
    This system is just a dog chasing it’s tail.

    00

  • #
    Joe

    Simple observational science to show an example of how manipulated we are:

    http://www.intelliweather.com/imagesuite_specialty.htm

    What this shows is that we have 2 circulation systems on this planet and trying to lump all the data and readings on the planet into one is incorrect. The northern hemisphere and southern hemisphere under one biosphere.
    The understanding of planetary mechanics is the area science has missed. Our science is based on points of time and not on rotational involvement.

    00

  • #
    Tony

    The UK Commons Committee investigation was always going to be a whitewash since all the parties are still unwilling to investigate the science. The present is no time for this excercise with an election on the way, and the committee was riddled with somewhat intellectually challenged Labour MPs.
    Until there are clear political benefits from accepting the ever growing proof that CO2 is not a cause of significant warming we shall not have major movements in the stance of politicians.

    00

  • #
    Barry Woods

    Sorry for the following long reply: I just sent it to my MP.
    It is on topic, complaining about a BBC’s article in response to the findings of this enquiry.

    ————-
    BBC’s Richard Black says: (Mp’s Message of Climate Trust – 31st March 2009)

    “The hacked e-mails and documents date back more than 10 years, and huge changes have occurred since then in three key areas: ”

    He then repeats 3 times in the article,
    A decade ago,
    A decade ago,
    A decade ago (clearly implying all the docs/emails were 10 years old.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/the_first_of_the_numerous.html#comments

    my reply to Richard:

    The last emails were 12 November 2009:

    The BBC is either extremely ignorant of the content foia2009.zip, or shall we say being ‘economical with the truth’, it is an attempt to ‘spin’ to the public, that it is all a storm in a tea cup, about TEN year old information.
    When at the time of the leak the latest emails were FOUR DAYS old.

    The BBC must surely know that what is being said in this article and implying to the public is not true.

    A reasonable person may ask. Why is the BBC doing this?

    Privately, in the emails, (only 2 months before Copenhagen) the climate scientists are discussing the fact that it has not warmed for 10 years, they are disagreeing about what is going on, and the uncertainty.

    Just 2 months prior to Copenhagen, where the great and the powerful, were telling the WORLD, about unprecedented catstrophic global warming.
    The highest temperatures since ‘records began, etc, rising sea levels, settled science. Unprecedented rates of warming, etc.

    The very scientists at the heart of the IPCC, the scientists that the political circus depends on to promote, catastrophic man made global science is both certain and a DANGER, scientists like Jones, Mann, Trenbeth, Wigley, etc.

    One of them was complaining october 10, 2009 (not ten years ago) about a BBC reporter Paul Hudson, writing an article his BBC blog on the BBC website:

    “Whatever happened to global warming.”

    A climategate email: BBC u-turn on climate change (oct 11, 2009):

    “You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBC’s reporter on climate change, on Friday wrote that there’s been no warming since 1998, and that pacific oscillations will force cooling for the next 20-30 years. It is not outrageously biased in presentation as are other skeptics’ views.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013173/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on-climate-change/

    BBC has significant influence on public opinion outside the US.”

    There were a number of responses from the climate scientists team:

    Trenbeth in reply to Mann (oct 12, 2009):

    “Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. ”

    “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.”

    Wigley to Trenbeth and the team (oct14 2009)

    “At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the recent lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to look at the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic trend relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second is to remove
    ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the observed data.

    Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.”

    Kevin to Wigley and team:

    “How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where 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!”

    Mann again 14 Oct 2009:

    “But this raises the interesting question, is there something going on here w/ the energy & radiation budget which is inconsistent with the modes of internal variability that leads to similar temporary cooling periods within the models. I’m not sure that this has been addressed–has it?”

    Another response:
    “I didn’t mean to offend you. But what you said was “we can’t account or the lack of warming at the moment”. Now you say “we are no where close to knowing where energy is going”. In my eyes these are two different things — the second relates to our level of understanding, and I agree that this is still lacking.”

    Then of course, Michael Mann’s thought is to get in touch with Richard Black (BBC):

    Michael Mann wrote:

    “extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd,
    since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.

    We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s up here?”

    Is this the settled science?

    Then a few months later after Climategate and copenhagen, Roger Harrabin, in a website interview with Phil Jones, gives some answers to sceptics questions:
    Not exactly primetime TV (as all the scares at Copenhagen)

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm

    No Statitsical warming for a decade.
    It has probably as warm, warmer in the past,
    and the rate of warming has been similar in the past (ie not unprecedented)

    So why were the politicians screaming at Copenhage – 50 days to save the planet.

    From what, a natural cycle of climate, indistinguishable form previous natural cycles, with no human signature identified in the climate..

    Very relevant, very now, with a 45 trillion ‘carbon’ economy just around the corner.

    Also, again the BBC ‘spins’ the truth..

    that the data was freely available.. (is being economical with the truth)

    From the available data, in order to reproduce, test audit Jones, et als work.

    You need to know, what data was used, what subset was used, what adjustemnts, etc,etc.

    Without that it is impossible to reproduce/test the results..

    That is what was being asked for, the response Richard Black gives above is just like the miriad of excuses used, by CRU and their apologists.

    I am ashamed that the BBC (my BBC) is either so ignorant of what occured, or is just too scared to look properly, or to scared to investigate the allegations for themselves..

    Maybe it is time for certain members of the environment team to step aside for a while, they may not realise it, but very many people, partly in response to what was described above.

    Many people believe that the BBC has got to close to their sources, capture by ‘groupthink’ and are now part of the man made climate science advocay and are not just reporting it anymore….

    Personally I think that analysis is being generous.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    We all need to understand that the fight is political and not about science. Their “science” has been shot down by, among others, The Skeptic’s Handbook. The refutation is completely sound and immune to any successful attack. Since the drivers of this thing don’t care about the science in the first place, it behooves us to whip up as much public opposition as we can on the basis of cost, harm to society and to those who will listen, the bad science. But the fight is to be won by making the effort to get the public aware of the scam.

    Don’t let anyone tell you that we aren’t making a difference. AGW pushers are running scared and there’s plenty of evidence of it. We must keep up the pressure and it must come as opposition from the citizenry to government policies.

    This may seem hard to do but by good honest polling the number of Americans who now doubt global warming, has increased. The skeptic’s side is getting out.

    00

  • #
    Joe Spencer

    Roy @ #36
    There’s a good honest poll coming up in England soon, called a General Election

    The consensus is still alive & well among the mainstream parties, & Joe Public isn’t going to vote for a marginal, just on the strength of global warming/ or not, which they are begining to recognise as more of a non-issue.

    00

  • #
    Henry chance

    Members of Parliament. Known for cheating millions of pounds on expenses. What is cheating of a few degrees? The chickens are scared. If they made the warmistas angry, the warmistas would dig up some more dirt for revenge.

    00

  • #
    Rod Smith

    Roy Hogue: We all need to understand that the fight is political and not about science.

    Absolutely on-target! We should not forget that politics today is about money and power, and maybe not in that order. Worse yet, most politicians in the US are not even remotely educated in any science, either applied of theoretical, and generally are not too interested in ethics beyond posturing and doublespeak. They are bolstered by a large portion of our media, most of who are from the same background.

    We need a thorough cleaning, but I agree that we must keep the pressure up.

    00

  • #
    Joe Veragio

    Seriously, what competence have these MP’s got to rule on such matters ?

    They are, at best, well intentioned public representatives, with little or no experience of what they’re pronouncing on.

    While the same may be said of the Judiciary, they at least would have some competence in the taking & weighing of evidence.

    With these Government appointed Enquiries, there is no-one seriously prosecuting the case. The Committee decides who to invite to give evidence and prefers to keep its cosy.

    While such naivety may be pardonable, partiality is not.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Joe Spencer @37,

    Indifference can only last until the pain starts. Then the other shoe drops. If nothing else, the more people who then remember that they heard it was a fraud the better.

    There is no more devout coward in this world than a politician afraid of losing an election. Even those in this country who brazenly defied the wishes of their constituents to pass Obama-care are foolishly counting on people turning around as the President blathers away about what he’s done for to them. Do not underestimate the people, not even in the UK.

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Sorry for the off-topic post here. But I want to say that I think I have noticed lately an increase in participation in this forum from people using their real names. It used to be that this applied to nearly everyone here, and I confess that I found it a less attractive group when the trend moved heavily to anonymous posters, which I find offensive. We note that using your real name is #1 in Joanne’s list of guideleines. So I say “thank you” to Roy, Rereke, Graeme, Rod, Brian, Tom, Louis, Richard, and all others who have the ethics to identify themselves.

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    “Any thoughts on what this might look like? Gosh, I hope it doesn’t get real ugly.”

    It has to get ugly. Clive Hamilton went so far as to lie about the history of this matter and was given 5 posts in a row at ABC Unleashed, to pull this reversalist lie.

    What Clive seemed to be doing is trying to lock us in. Like imagine if I took out a restraining order on Clive for no reason at all, but accused him of being a stalker. If he so much as came around to ask why I had done so, this would then appear to confirm my accusation. So you see how dirty its already got with Clive deliberately projecting the opposite of the authentic history, wherein global warming fraudsters persecuted commited scientists.

    I think for starters we have to realise the seriousness of the problem, and see it alongside the very intractable problems of reality and myth. To stop a fire you have to remove either one of three: 1. Fuel 2. Oxygen 3. Heat

    If you can remove any one of these three 100% then thats enough to destroy the fire outright. But the reality is that its hard to acheive 100% removal in any one of these, so you try to hit all three aspects at once.

    With terrorism you have 1. Regime and intelligence leadership of terrorist sponsoring regimes. 2. Financing of terrorism. 3. Hate incitement and promotion of the terrorist cause. 4. The existence of terrorist organisation 5. Actual terrorist operatives about to act.

    If we could kill many of the relevant regime leaders and leave many others in a state of horrifying fear and anxiety that would itself do the job. But we want to hit all sides of the problem, because its quite hard to demonstrate an ability to reach out and kill any culpable leadership at any time.

    In one story I think Hercules had to remove some monstors contact with the ground before he could beat him up. Because the critter would renew his strength from the ground itself. So he held him up with one arm and pummelled him with the other.

    Its this more holistic thinking that is required I’m supposing.

    The most important thing is not to leave the nastier CO2-bedwetters in place. If Clive, PZ Myers and the rest are still locked into the quackademic halls of power, even after they are proved wrong, they will exert a horrible vengeance on those who proved them wrong. And on science and policy more generally.

    I think we have to go beyond realising that their ideas are wrong, and get to the point where we realise that they themselves are wrong and unacceptable, in terms of being on the public tit. We have to learn to oppose them for who they are, and not just for what they do.

    00

  • #
    Arn Riewe

    There was a headline on Pajamas Media recently that sort of summarized this comic inquiry. “Sophisticated Incompetence is the New National Characteristic of Britain”.I fear socialization process that’s going on in the U.S., but at least we seem to be martialing a popular resistance to the growth and intrusion of government. Britain seems to be past the point of no return now.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Steve,

    I’ve always believed that if I have something to say I should say it with my own name attached. If I’m contemplating saying something that I don’t want my name associated with then it’s something I shouldn’t say.

    But some here value their privacy; have professional or other reasons for not using their full names. So we have to respect what everyone decides to use online.

    And thank you for the complement.

    Roy

    00

  • #
    Joe Veragio

    Arn @ #44:

    but at least we seem to be martialing a popular resistance to the growth and intrusion of government. Britain seems to be past the point of no return now.

    Indeed, the trick – if we can call it that – is for government to empathise with every such concern that’s raised, be seen to take it seriously, by holding a parliamentary inquiry, which concludes there isn’t really a problem at all…

    Let’s hope the US never catches on to such sophistry.

    00

  • #
    Jennifer Marohasy

    Well done! And I’ve had a good laugh. All power to you.

    00

  • #
    JPA Knowles

    Echoing JV @ 46.
    When I was studying Brit Govt & Politics my lecturer reckoned that the purpose of a Royal Commission or Parliamentary Enquiry was to diffuse tension and avoid instability in the running of the country. Upon announcement of an enquiry all tricky questions could be fobbed-off with comments such as…”I cannot comment on that until the Enquiry hands down its verdict”. By then the issue will probably have lost some of it’s initial impact and the tacticians will have framed the terms of reference to ask more questions about lesser issues and less about the fundamental ones.
    Am I being a bit cynical here?

    00

  • #
    JPA Knowles

    Following on from Steve S’s off-thread @ 42 on using real names.
    Why do people feel the need to make personal derogatory remarks on blogs rather than constructive criticism of the actual topic? Even if we give our names we reside in the relative anonymity of the medium. Roy H @ 45 does make a valid exception tho’.
    Where are all the educated types who could easily comment here? Is it not a privilage to have a open public forum run by Jo Nova?
    Thanks Jo and all those who have studied science further than me or can be bothered to contribute to this important debate.

    00

  • #
    Rumble Mourdre

    Someone said I’d be back. They were right, but for this and only this:

    Godwin Grech moment, Jo!

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Rumble Mourdre:

    I’m having a Pauline Hanson moment, Please explain?

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    @Steve Schapel About names.
    keep seeing these google adverts for “Postgraduate Diploma in Energy and Environment (Global Warming & Climate Science)” Hmmm can’t hide much from google but who would want that badge of shame as it gets colder.
    Would like to keep using my long time nickname which is known to workmates even schoolmates from decades ago so I will put my name at the bottom from time to time. Siliggy is also the name i have used on YouTube comments debates. So there is some Non hiding going on also.
    Some people will have unpredictable assorted good reasons to stay Anon.
    Lance Pidgeon

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    Rumble

    Godwin Grech moment

    Logic and reasoning is not your forte based on that analogy. Grech faked an e-mail and got caught whereas the team faked evidence and got away with it(for now).

    However it does explain your acceptance of the AGW hypothesis.

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    Siliggy

    One of those diploma’s would be quite handy. You could commit any crime and avoid punishment by reason of insanity.

    00

  • #

    [...] Joanne Nova summarises; “The UK Parliamentary Committee was always going to be a whitewash”. I [...]

    00

  • #
    Mark

    A good read: Encouraging, considering it’s from Germany.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,686697,00.html

    Sorry if it spoils your Easter hols; another great Richard North article, this one on the ghastly little euro gnome, Herman Van Rompuy.

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/04/president-has-spoken.html

    00

  • #
    DougS

    I’ve been dreading this. Just wait until the Climate Fraud Deniers get three whitewashes under their belts – there’ll be no living with them!

    Climategate will be consigned to history (by the Warmists) in a way that makes it look and sound as if it never happened.

    I can just see the alarmists dismissing any mention of it with…’Climategate, nothing to see there, it’s all been sorted out by three enquiries, move on’.

    Jo’s right of course, we need to keep repeating the worst excesses quoted in the emails so that they’re as sick of hearing them as we are of the Warmists’ robotic mantras…’it’s all settled, the evidence? is overwhelming, there’s a clear concensus, 4000 acientists agree etc. etc…’

    00

  • #
  • #
    Joe Veragio

    There’s an interesting View On the Select Committee Report from Richard, over at SPPI.

    What competence had this Selected Committee of serving MP’s ‘though, to assess evidence as a Court of Law would ?

    They are no Court of Law. It is little more than a parliamentary auditing exercise – and one over which the wool has been kept well and truly pulled.

    00

  • #

    I’m in (a glacially slow) email dialogue with my UK elected representative of Parliament about this important subject and I don’t know whether to laugh or cry or be mad at his response.

    the following is just an extract from his response to me

    I still believe the evidence overwhelmingly points to the existence of man-made global warming, but I also believe you are right that the recent leaked emails do appear on the face of it, to point to an approach which discounts the possibility that this is not happening. I very much hope this is not the case, and I am pleased that this matter, and the data connected, is being reviewed. It is also potentially a worry that conflicting views are not being published, however it is not clear whether this is because of bias, or whether the standard of the work produced has not been considered good enough to pass the peer review process.

    I have to say also that there is a well funded AGW-sceptic movement, funded by private enterprise, particularly oil companies, rather than by government. The potential for scientists to be influenced by pressure from those that provide their funding is obviously a concern, but the pattern of warming, and the theory behind it, had long been established before this funding was really forthcoming, and I do still have faith in this process.

    So it’s quite timely that I read this new article from Jo about just how balanced our committees are….

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Steve Schapel: @42

    Steve I don’t necessarily disagree with you about the use of full real name. Let me say to reply though:
    Other than those with lengthy connection to the subject (like Courtney, Hissink and others) how would you know if a full name is the “real name” of the person posting?
    Second, Call me paranoid, but I see no reason to expose myself or family to a radical Farnish like Green.

    00

  • #
    Jayson

    I hope someone has sent in some quality submissions to Muir Russell’s inquiry – http://www.cce-review.org
    CRU sent in a great reply to every point. It reads very well and I can see that even someone with a neutral view point ( esp coming from a government background) is going to take as powerful.
    Steven McIntyres effort unfortunately was nowhere near as good. Yes the problems of the composition of the inquiry had to be mentioned but it was repetitive and sounded like whining.

    The attacks on the science (which they open up enough options to cover) pointing out the really horrendous emails – especially the code revelations – needs to be much clearer.
    I have not ready every submission yet but I hope there is more there.

    Maybe there needs to be some coordination on submissions. This is a huge opportunity – yes built to get an fixed answer. But if ‘we’ have the science then ‘we’ need to take these opportunities, because the decisions will be broadcast far and wide and could be very damaging to whichever side is ruled against.

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Baa Humbug; great idea; I’ve read your post and posted it to my cohorts; now we need a group of people to compile it; and hopefully we need one or two scientists aboard; it’s your suggestion; what do you suggest we do next; for example do you know any scientists who we could approach; (I’m in Australia don’t know where you live); then we need others who can do the work involved with the submission – when are the closing dates for submissions do you know

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Jayson; sorry my previous e mail was to you; so far as I can see submissions closed on 1 March but could you respond to my e mail in response to you re ‘Maybe there needs to be some coordination on submissions. This is a huge opportunity – yes built to get an fixed answer. But if ‘we’ have the science then ‘we’ need to take these opportunities, because the decisions will be broadcast far and wide and could be very damaging to whichever side is ruled against.

    00

  • #
    Jayson

    Val,
    Joanne has the knowledge and the contacts with who’s who in the world of skeptics. There are 2 other reviews going on as well (assuming Muir Russell’s is closed). I would hope time is spent putting submissions together – even if it mean stopping blogging for a while. A lot of blogging is preaching to the converted. Getting the message to major reviews is the next step.

    So how about it Joanne? Is there coordinated effort being put into these inquiries?

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Jayson I accept what you say but whether Jo would have the time is another matter; if I could get some people interested what enquiries would you suggest and what skills can you offer; and what skills can others offer; I can say that I have a legal background so probably drafting is my thing but I don’t have the time to do the whole submission alone

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Jayson you can e mail Jo direct – click on ‘about’ on the menu and you’ll get an e mail address and a lot quicker reply

    00

  • #

    This is an excellent article by Mr Booker

    MPs Begin The Climate Gate Whitewash

    His point about the confession by Julia Slingo is interesting: The Met Office have now abandoned their seasonal forecasts as being too embarrassing (barbecue summers, a mild winter – actually the coldest for 30 years, etc.), so how valid are their 100 year forecasts?

    Surely somebody with half an ounce of intelligence on the inquiry could have made that correlation and asked that question? You don’t need to be an expert in the discipline of Climate change to ask a “dumb question” like that! As a UK citizen and taxpayer, the incompetence of our Government in all areas, especially this one, is a considerable source of embarrassment to me!

    The thing that really annoys me is that if I had been caught fiddling data like this in my line of work, I would not have rapped on the knuckles by a supportive inquiry, I would have been sacked (and rightly so).

    And this is also an interesting article by Mr Booker as well

    Can We Trust The Climate Gate Inquiry

    00

  • #
    substanti8

    “They put no skeptics on the committee; they interviewed no skeptics …”

    Nice disinformation … as usual.

    In fact, Graham Stringer (Labour MP) seems to be an ardent “sceptic”, and he dominated the questioning during the March 1st hearing, asking roughly half of the total questions – often referring to the likes of McIntyre and McKitrick – which means the “sceptic” viewpoint was certainly represented.

    Nothing will ever, ever satisfy paranoid anti-science crusaders – regardless of how often their sad attempts to manufacture controversy fail in epic proportions, and regardless of the incredibly selfish impact on future generations.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Substanti8, Nice name.
    Couldn’t spell substance? As in Co2 is a harmless substance, How about substantial (as in no substantial evidence of AGW) or Substandard (as in your ability to look at the whole picture), or sublime as in how I feel seeing warmists squirm as their house of cards collapses.

    regardless of how often their sad attempts to manufacture controversy fail in epic proportions, and regardless of the incredibly selfish impact on future generations.

    Your squirming is palpable. How could we be failing in “epic proportions” if there is going to be “impact on future generations”? Seems to me you are worried……

    By the way, prove there is any Co2 warming.

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Joe Veragio:

    At #59 you mention me and ask a question, saying:

    There’s an interesting View On the Select Committee Report from Richard, over at SPPI.

    What competence had this Selected Committee of serving MP’s ‘though, to assess evidence as a Court of Law would ?

    They are no Court of Law. It is little more than a parliamentary auditing exercise – and one over which the wool has been kept well and truly pulled.

    I respond that the Members of the Select Committee have the same “competence” as the members of any jury. Indeed, that is why the Select Committee adopted the method that Courts (i.e. Judges) instruct jurors to adopt for consideration of ‘evidence’.

    Richard

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    SubstantiaB:

    At #69 you assert:

    “They put no skeptics on the committee; they interviewed no skeptics …”

    Nice disinformation … as usual.

    In fact, Graham Stringer (Labour MP) seems to be an ardent “sceptic”, and he dominated the questioning during the March 1st hearing, asking roughly half of the total questions – often referring to the likes of McIntyre and McKitrick – which means the “sceptic” viewpoint was certainly represented.

    Nothing will ever, ever satisfy paranoid anti-science crusaders – regardless of how often their sad attempts to manufacture controversy fail in epic proportions, and regardless of the incredibly selfish impact on future generations.

    I think you completely misundertand the issue. Indeed, attitudes such as that you display encourage suspicion of the apparent fraudsters by the non-committed.

    As I report elsewhere on this blog, I explain my understanding of the problem at
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/comments_uk_p.pdf

    I say there concerning the Select Committee enquiry

    The Minutes of the Formal Meeting on 24 March 2010 record that Mr Stringer did attempt to get the Select Committee to conduct an assessment of Climategate according to scientific principles of evidence. Those minutes can be read at
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/hc-387-i-uea-final-embargoed-v2.pdf
    and they record that on nine separate occasions Mr Stringer called for the committee to vote a decision according to the scientific understanding of ‘evidence’. The Chairman abstained from each vote and Mr Stringer lost each vote being in a minority of one because the other three members at the Meeting opposed him in each vote.

    It seems that the Committee assessed the information presented to it as being the kind of ‘evidence’ that Law Courts assess.

    The ‘Conclusions’ of my essay include these points concerning the Penn State University and the Select Committee enquiries:

    These comments conclude that there was no ‘whitewash’ but that both the completed investigations used the same flawed method to assess the affair, and this method inevitably provides findings that seem to exonerate the Team. The used method was to adopt a legal definition of ‘evidence’, and this has resulted in the enquiries saying those under suspicion are exonerated because the suspected persons said they had done nothing wrong.

    Hence, the two completed enquiries have resulted in greater suspicion of the involved scientists by providing an impression of a whitewash.

    and

    Suspicions will remain concerning members of the Team and their actions until a different form of enquiry is completed. Hence, whatever the ‘truth’ of the Climategate affair, such a different form of enquiry is needed if that ‘truth’ is to be divined and is to be generally accepted. That different form of enquiry needs to assess the information in the emails and the computer code by using a scientific definition – not a legal definition – of ‘evidence’.

    It is to be hoped that the investigations of Climategate that are now being conducted will be such a different form of enquiry. Failure to conduct such a different form of enquiry would result in continued suspicion of the affected climate scientists and could damage the reputation of science as a whole.

    Anyway, that essay explains what I think about the matter.

    Richard

    00

  • #
    johnathon cook

    hav read the complete emails in the correct context. hide the decline. trick . i think 5 sentences out of 1000 emails and 4000 documents is hardly a strong case against science. its an act of desperation by skeptics if thats all they have . hide the decline had nothing to do with a decline in global temp. there is no decline. skeptics do your homework. you are failing badly. you are in your last days now that science is counter attacking [ about time ]

    [Argument by dilution of deception?. Just because they were only overtly deceptive cheating biased guys sometimes is not much of an endorsement. Desperate aren't you? It's like pretending that a bank robber only robs the bank once in every 4000 visits, so thats ok then? __ JN]

    00

  • #
    barry woods

    jonathon cook:

    you are allowed to comment here…

    I have found I am NOT allowed to comment, at ALL, in The Guardian, RealClimate, Blue Blog (official conservative party), Telegraph sometimes, BBC sometimes, Greenpaece, etc,etc

    How can there be a debate, if memebers of the public are ‘moderated’ into oblivion.

    Why am I desperate, what is my motive, am some sort of alien species (‘sceptic’) that doesn’t share the same planet with you, is it a war, is their a prize for the ‘winner’?
    I might have to pay a few more taxes if the governments get their way, I will survive that..

    However millions of the world’s poorest people are now in food poverty because of this delusion…

    Remember your comments, in 5 years time when all this was shown to be an embarrasment, and 9 out of 10 people will be claiming ‘I was always sceptical myself’ about catastrophic, unprecednted man made global warming.

    ie the ice wil be back to ‘normal’ (whatever that is), we might be drifting into another (naturally) little ice age, etc,etc. temps have dropped (even though a planetary temperature is a meaningless concept)

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    johnathon cook,

    You should not come around making the claim that we’re on the run, much less that there was no decline. Those children at CRU lied, cheated and then conveniently “lost” their original data so no one could figure out the extent of their deception. Not a bad day’s work if you don’t give toot about the truth.

    And by the way — they’re after us because we’re hurting them. Nobody bothers to chase after someone considered harmless. And I rather like that! The truth will be your undoing before you know it.

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    johnathon cook:
    April 9th, 2010 at 9:55 pm

    hav read the complete emails in the correct context. hide the decline. trick . i think 5 sentences out of 1000 emails and 4000 documents is hardly a strong case against science.

    Hey Cook, I’d like you to post those 5 sentences, then I’ll add to them gladly.

    Now I know you’re not an idiot or a fool, so you MUST BE A LIAR because either you DIDN’T read all the e-mails as you claim (makes you a liar) or you did read them but are misstating (lying) the number of important emails.

    So theres your challenge. You’ve been called A LIAR. Now stump up those 5 sentences and I’ll reply.

    Are you up to it or are you just another GUTLESS alarmist LEMMING?

    00

  • #

    Johnathon Cook, also known as robin banks, donald mcdermot, mickey mantel, mickey muncha, bruce griffin, thomas payne, jimmy hoffa, robert black, gary eck, karl reiner, “it is getting warmer”, and “open minded” is a serial pest poster who was “moderated” in january for throwing baseless slurs, and meaningless ad hominem attacks. He still has not apologized, nor provided any substance to back up his claims, nor identified himself, and so clearly is someone happy to anonymously post lies. He has 72 attempts since January to rectify that and failed. It was a mistake to release that one comment on this thread.

    Whoever you are, anonymous chicken, Baa humbug threw insults, but didn’t throw an ad hom, he pointed out (albeit not politely) that there are more than 5 incriminating lines, so your earlier reasoning is bogus. The challenge was for you to name the five lines. In 3 responses you havent.

    Since you break laws of logic, have no manners or honesty, and remain “anonymous” I think we can safely assume you’re either suffering a mental deficiency or are a paid attack dog. Congrats, you are now the one and only person who is actually permanently blocked, moderators will no longer need to filter through the petty drivel.

    All you had to do was apologize convincingly, and you could have kept posting. Evidently you want to “save the planet” but not as much as you want to throw mud, make up lies, and practice kindergarten name-calling.

    00