JoNova

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


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Skeptics leap from planes to see if zombie media will finally notice ClimateGate emails

What do skeptics have to do to break the spell of government appointed experts?

Many journalists are apparently trapped in a fit of ideological blindness — they can’t acknowledge emails leaked from their favourite scientists. What do you do when your religious idol turns out to be a mere fallible human — caught deleting emails, hiding data and pretending that their models are accurate when they privately admit they’re “all wrong”?  The “overwhelming evidence” for the prophecies of a coming man-made disaster are exposed in the emails as based on biased research, petty trickery, flawed assumptions and an all too human desire to “keep me employed”.

The trance of big-government appointed prophets is so strong, skeptics such as Christopher Monckton and Craig Rucker (CFACT) are going to skydive into Durban to see if they can shake journalists out of their stupor.

The big jump will happen at 11am Durban time  (5pm Perth, 8pm Sydney, 9am London, and 4am New York time.) Right now!

And if that doesn’t work, what next? Do they take off their clothes?!


From Marc Morano and Climate Depot:

Climategate 2.0 parachutes into COP17: - Skeptics risk life and limb free-falling from 3000 feet to draw attention to Climategate 2.0 — The skeptical skydiving team will land at Toti beach. Media and all interested persons are invited to the beach to observe the landing’ – (Parachutes will be double checked for potential sabotage by warmists :)

From CFACT:

CFACT skydivers to tow banners into UN Durban conference
Lord Monckton, Craig Rucker, Climate Depot to parachute
Emails exposing  biased science cannot be ignored

On Tuesday, December 6 at 11:00 AM, CFACT skydivers will parachute past COP17 trailing banners demanding attention to the Climategate 2.0 emails.  The skydiving team will land at Toti beach.  Media and all interested persons are invited to the beach to observe the landing.

The second batch of emails from scientists working on the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change contain shocking revelations which show an insular cadre of climate scientists coordinating efforts to place advocacy ahead of science, stifle dissent,  and conceal information which detracts from a preconceived, ideologically driven, global warming narrative.

“Media covering COP17 are kidding themselves if they think they can ignore and wish away Climategate 2.0,” said CFACT Executive Director Craig Rucker.  “Lord Monckton, the folks from Climate Depot and I will carry our message by parachute if that’s what it takes to wake up this conference and place the Climategate evidence of corrupted science where the world must see it.”

The Climategate emails provide a shockingly candid look at the machinations of the high priests of global warming.  They have given rise to renewed demands that the IPCC, EU and the EPA cancel existing plans and programs to cap and tax carbon emissions.  These misguided policies already have created economic havoc in Europe, cost hundreds of thousands of jobs in the U.S. and pose a major threat to the world economy.

Marc Morano, publisher of CFACT’s ClimateDepot.com, said that the emails reveal the scientists at the heart of the manmade global warming industry have been “caught red-handed exaggerating the extent of man-made global warming while privately admitting to one another that the evidence is nowhere near as strong as they were claiming.”

The new emails led Morano to conclude that they “… further expose the upper echelon of the UN IPCC as being more interested in crafting a careful narrative than following the evidence.”  He notes, for example, that Penn State professor Michael Mann stated in one email that, “The important thing is to make sure they’re [climate skeptics] losing the PR battle.”  The University of East Anglia’s Keith Briffa (a colleague of the already discredited EAU Climate Research Center head Phil Jones) also chimed in, “I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro greenhouse zealot here!”

Rucker further noted that “The release of these emails is yet another major setback for alarmists who are hyping fears over climate change in order to exercise influence over ever-increasing segments of the U.S. and world economy.”

CFACT, which has been a fully accredited non-governmental organization at these UN events for two decades, will be closely monitoring and offering daily reports on the developments in Durban.  Rucker says the new emails provide even stronger reasons to oppose such radical Green initiatives as the World Wildlife Fund-Oxfam proposal for a new $25 per ton global tax on shipping with the goal of curtailing carbon emissions; the call by Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Venezuela for a new climate tax on worldwide financial transactions; and a proposed new “sustainability treaty.”

As Rucker notes, “The real agenda of the climate alarmists is to promote massively expanded government regulation  worldwide, at the expense of jobs creation and economic growth.  The policies they advocate will do the greatest harm to the world’s poorest people and ensure that citizens of developing nations have no chance at true freedom and prosperity.”

Gandhi told us, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”  CFACT’s parachute drop will force the media to cease ignoring the evidence.  CFACT looks forward to winning.

Go to www.CLIMATEDEPOT.com for details on Climategate 2.0.  More information on CFACT’s mission to Durban at www.CFACT.tv. Also at www.CFACT.org, & www.CFACT.eu.

 

Hat tip to Hedley for the link to the “keeping me employed” email.

 

Thanks to Val Majkus for the video link.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (82 votes cast)
Skeptics leap from planes to see if zombie media will finally notice ClimateGate emails, 9.3 out of 10 based on 82 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/caz287n

102 comments to Skeptics leap from planes to see if zombie media will finally notice ClimateGate emails

  • #
    Chappers

    Jo, for gods sake, when will these warmists wake up? the last bus has left and they werent on it.
    and we have this wooden headed woman running the country on the basis of her Ego and pig headed attitude.
    fine way to destroy a once magic place to live.
    Sigh,,,Give me strength.
    J.C.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Pete H

    Print every email out 5000 times each and do what the RAF did in the 2nd WW in Germany. Carpet bomb Durban with them!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      amcoz

      Better still, send the 5,000 emails to the that stupid department in charge of controlling the weather and marked URGENT, for the immediate attention of Greg Combet.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Bush bunny

        amcoz and not put a postage stamp on it? No return address. I wonder how long it will take for someone else to double this stunt. Or the teacher in Britain, who turned off all the central heating, warned kids to come rugged up, and temps inside fell to 1 C. He was trying to show kids how they could
        reduce carbon foot prints. You reckon the kids will take much notice? It will prove how cold it can get though in an ice age without heating.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    Cappers: I done’t believe your “wooden headed woman” can be any worse than our lot of woodentops in the UK:
    Cameron
    Huhne (nick named Looney or Buff)
    Miliband
    Clegg
    etc
    etc
    etc


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Is there a prize for who lands on Pachauri first?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Fred

    If you thought that manipulation of the public’s perception of reality by the use of repetitive propaganda died out with Goebbels and the Nazis after WW2, think again. It’s happening all over again with the AGW myth, and almost no-one is doing anything about it. Only something like another Ice Age beginning will prove to the mesmerised public that the IPCC “experts” are lying.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Bush bunny

      Absolutely, but …. who will be game to tell all those carbon credit holders they have invested in a myth, and all those crazing greens who think we should do without energy to alter climate change.
      The best was the 45 trillion dollars Libya wanted to erect some crazy scheme to run windmills that could be fed electricity all over the globe? Oh yeah. Well those types of ego trips will do everything to harm this conference. Especially when some countries wake up and leave with empty pockets.

      You all note, Lord Christopher left off his safety
      helmet so no one could say it wasn’t him. Gudun.
      But don’t try it again, please, we need you.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    MC62

    I live in Cape Town and can testify to the totally one-sided portrayal of COP17 coverage. The South African media has been shameless in their coverage. I have had 30 letters to the editor printed over the course of the last 5 years on global warming, but they won’t print them now. A friend of mine was scheduled to debate a GreenPeacer on national talk-radio, but at the 11th hour the state run SAFM canceled my friend’s appearance because the GreenPeacer didn’t want to debate someone who would clean his clock. The lies and propaganda are flying fast and furious here with South Africa promising to become a green economy–that should finish off things here and lead us to a Zimbabwe existence. Indeed, there are tin-foil hats a plenty in South Africa right now.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    In March of 2008, I was asked if I would like to contribute at a US Blog site, after leaving a comment there.

    I had never done anything like that before, and rarely left comments even at some sites, so I had no idea where to start.

    I did have a germ of an idea to contribute on (what I perceived as my) field of expertise, electrical power, but I needed a way to try and inject interest into what seemed a fairly dry and somewhat technical subject.

    Based on an earlier call to talk back radio with a Nuclear Physicist, I had a slight interest in what was then called Global Warming, something that later morphed into Climate Change.

    The Physicist mentioned the Kyoto protocol, so I went looking for that, and from that I had the point of interest, what would the ramifications be if we were to abide by what Kyoto called for.

    Because the Blog was US based, I then had to structure it around the US electrical power generation.

    My perception was that the Series would be short in nature, say 5 to 8 separate Posts, something that morphed into more than 50 Posts in the long run over more than 3 months.

    The more I looked, the more I found, and the more the realisation sunk in that this was indeed something ‘not quite right’.

    Now, the point of this Comment.

    When I chased up the information on Kyoto, it was at the Wikipedia site, virtually all there was in early 2008. I followed it up from the UNFCCC site.

    Back then, that Kyoto Wiki site was barely 2 screens of information, and very basic indeed, but it had all the relevant information, because in those days, it had not reached the stage where every man jack and his dog could add (or delete for that matter) information to the site.

    Where I am now is that the original information still holds true.

    Kyoto of itself is the instrument of its own demise.

    192 Countries originally signed up, and all but one (The US) have added the all important second signature.

    40 Countries were hived off that list and from that 40, a small group of 23 Countries (Australia included) were then tasked with all the ‘heavy lifting’, lower their emissions, introduce a form of ETS, construct renewables, and most importantly, to pay ALL the costs of the other 152 Countries.

    Now you can see why (especially those 23 Countries) they desperately need to find a replacement, because it expires at the end of 2012.

    The 152 do not wnat it changed ….. AT ANY COST, as it is a legally binding document.

    Now, at Durban, and Combet has finally arrived to lead the (Government) 40 officials, he tells us that they will not find a replacement for Kyoto here either, and redux Cancun and also Copenhagen.

    What they will do is spin other things, all of them minor, because Kyoto will not be replaced with anything remotely resembling Kyoto.

    Instead, individual Governments will institute regulations in their own Countries to get their own way, as has happened here with the passing of the CO2 Tax The Clean Energy Future Legislation.

    Combet is spinning everything he can, desperate not to tell anybody why Kyoto can not be replaced.

    Pity so few people even bother to see what Kyoto called for, and what the implications would be.

    I’ve tried the ‘Way Back Machine’ to access what the original Kyoto looked like but they don’t do Wiki.

    Once people see the real truth of Kyoto, it then becomes patently obvious why it cannot be replaced.

    If any of you have even the slightest interest, here’s the link to that original series of mine, and there’s 3 pages of Posts, dry in parts, but actually this is where I started out, as can be seen by the pretty basic style way back in Post Number One.

    The Kyoto Series.

    Tony.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      brc

      Tony – you say it is a legal binding document – which I’m not arguing with. But if someone doesn’t comply – what are the legal options for the person who loses out?

      So, let’s say I form a bloc of 5 developing nations, and I want my climate money.

      Where do I take, say, Canada or the UK to court for not fulfilling it’s obligations under Kyoto? If there is such a court, and they find against me, who makes me pay?

      PS Wiki itself can show you the history of its pages. See Kyoto Wikipedia page history. You’ll have to page back a lot through the history, there’s been a lot of changes.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        I want you to think about this for a minute with respect to that Kyoto Protocol.

        Only in the last few years have World Governments begun to understand what the real intent of Kyoto really is, what the implications are, and how it will effect them.

        Those 23 Countries who have to do everything and pay for everything are now the main drivers in wanting a replacement, which will quite obviously considerably water down what the original Kyoto called for.

        Kyoto called for the other 152 Countries to do nothing more than just report their emissions, nothing.

        Being a legally binding document, there is no way they would countenance anything that waters down that, especially the part about all the costs being paid for by just those 23 Countries. They will fight tooth and nail to keep anything new the same as what Kyoto was/is.

        Kyoto called for ALL Countries to lower their emissions to a point 5% lower than what they were in 1990, something that not one Country has even gotten close to.

        So, and here’s the crux.

        If this Climate Change/Global Warming thing was as really desperate as we are being told, then surely they would just be wanting to extend Kyoto as it is, and with the same ‘teeth’ Kyoto has/had, and hang the expense.

        So now, in the name of Kyoto, all these things are being implemented by Governments to ensure their own Legislation is in place before Kyoto expires. They will then have ‘home grown’ legislation in place, and instead of sending all those Billions off to the UN, under the aegis of Kyoto, they can keep it all at home, because Kyoto has expired, hence the legal binding reason that holds them to it expires with it, if you can see that point.

        The big losers will be those 152 Countries.

        Sure, each new COP will come out with a warm and fluffy communique at the end, but there will be no replacement for Kyoto.

        Right now, those 23 Countries need really do nothing but sit on their hands and wait till the end of next year, because then, they will all be off the hook.

        If it was really about the environment, they would just extend Kyoto.

        It really does just prove the old adage.

        It’s just about the money!

        (Oh! and brc, thanks for the link back to those old Wiki pages. I had an inkling there might be a way, but I guess I’m just showing myself to be a little clueless on that front. That’s why I like fora like these. There’s always someone to show you new things, so thanks again.)

        Tony.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          brc

          I understand that if they want to sit on their hands, there’s nothing that can be done.

          But ‘legally binding treaty’ – what does that really mean. There is no supra-national government, court or police force. If someone does try and hold you to that legal agreement before the end of 2012 – so what? What can anyone really do about a flagrant abuse of Kyoto anyway?

          I guess the point I’m driving at is that international agreements are all useless anyway with no enforcement.

          My local council passed a regulation saying you’re not allowed to release helium balloons (on the basis that they pop and cause environmental destruction as they fall back to earth, or something). However they also admitted there was nobody to police it. So I could turn up in front of the council offices, release 10,000 balloons and there really isn’t anything they can do with no police force, no formal thing to charge me with, no enforcement at all. I doubt the local constabulary would be much inclined to do anything about it, given they enforce state laws not local laws.

          So my point is this : is not the Kyoto protocol (or any successors or pretenders) just the same as my local helium balloon law? Sounds good in theory, makes the right noises, but is ultimately not enforceable?

          At various times international treaties have been drawn up on all sorts of things – from making war illegal (not so successful) to making sure Hitler didn’t invade any more countries (no so successful) to any number of things that get routinely ignored.

          We hear talk of nations being held as a ‘pariah’ but really it means diddly-squat in the long run. It’s not as though people stop trading with China because of it’s terrible human rights records, and it’s not as though people would stop buying Australian metallurgical coal because we thumbed our nose at any Kyoto type treaties.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Jake

          Tony
          Appreciate what you are writing but as far as I understand the protocol and can find anywhere, if nothing new is agreed on the whole thing is dead by the end of 2012. No payments to anyone, no one who has to “legally” do anything.
          Kyoto as a protocol and what was agreed to appears to be over rover, not a continuation for the 23.
          Please show me a link where it shows that this in not the case.
          thanks


          Report this

          00

          • #

            Jake,
            you say:

            Kyoto as a protocol and what was agreed to appears to be over rover, not a continuation for the 23.

            This is, in a way, what I have been attempting to say, so I guess I’m not getting my real point across.

            Hence the rush to get the ‘home grown’ legislation in place before it expires, because when it does fizzle out, the imperative to do nothing will be stronger, and any ‘home grown’ legislation will then be harder to get in train, so having passed it here, it’s now a case of, ‘well, well, well, wasn’t that a stroke of luck we can now use all that money here at home’ for, er, other things, like, er, bringing the Budget back into surplus.

            Just sayin’

            Tony.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Crakar24

            Is that right Tony?

            The legislation as it stands will require the fortune 500 to by permits to emit carbon. If we have nowhere to send our billions then we have nowhere to buy our permits. No permits no billions and our coal mines etc shut down unless you can recind the tax which you cant.

            Or maybe i am looking at this arse about.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            brc

            Tony/Crakar

            I don’t think your point of rushing to get the legislation in before Kyoto expires is exactly correct. Of course not having Kyoto around is another thing to push against home-grown carbon tax/trading legislation, but as we have seen here, if someone has a majority and wants to do it, there’s precious little arguments that will make them change their mind.

            But even if Kyoto were to stay around, all countries still needed local legislation.

            The problem arises that, with no Kyoto there will be no (organised) global carbon market, so a locally traded cert (or maybe just trans-tasman) will have major demand/supply imbalances. Perhaps there will still be some type of global market or more cross-border trading markets, who knows. Which will either undermine the thing and make it collapse, or it will mean the government just prints out the certs to supply industry (in the same way they will with the carbon tax – note all the initial grants are just made-up permits which offset nothing) which makes the entire thing meaningless in terms of emissions, but not, as Tony says, in terms of raising revenue.

            The whole thing is such a mess it’s hard to divine the real strategy behind it, because it (a) seems like a tax grab that doesn’t grab any tax and (b) seems more tactical by the greens to get a billion dollar toybox than a strategic way to get more power.

            One thing is for sure, it’s a helluva swindle, and now we’ve got it. Never mind all the treasury assumptions about clean coal, international trading markets and prices are all, to put it politely, a pile of horse leftovers, we’re stuck with this millstone. I guess NZ is the test case to watch and see what they do when the global market disappears or is rent asunder from corruption and fraud.

            crakar – all legislation can be rescinded. Don’t believe that propaganda and tripe. If they can pass retrospective tax laws to try and claw back billions, you can get rid of the carbon tax. It’s just acts of parliament and they can all be changed. It might annoy a few people and cause conniptions amongst the true believers, but it can be rescinded. What is someone like BHP going to do- sue for the cost of their permits, most of which were given to them anyway? It would cause outrage and tears from the greens, but if the next government is formed by a party with a mandate to destroy the carbon tax and ETS, then there’s SFA they could do about it, in the same way there was SFA we could do about the carbon tax being passed despite the duplicitous way it was introduced.

            The biggest threat right now is Tony Abbott getting deposed by his own party before the next election. Because a removal of Abbott would probably come from a Turnbull-side challenge, and that side of the Liberal party is all for it. Hopefully nobody in conservative politics in Australia is stupid enough to (a) topple Abbott and (b) if (a) happens, reverse their position on dismantling the carbon tax.

            I’m sure the coalition have a plan, but my guess would be they just provide a pile of free certificates to anyone who wants one, making the tax void (remember it’s only handful of companies that are subject to it), then scrap the ETS part of it. The carbon-tax part is presumably self-destroying (ie, has an end date), given it’s meant to give way to an ETS. So just collect no tax and kill off the ETS and you’re done. The only people who are out are those who invested in subsidy-milking business, and well, I don’t think too many people will cry for them.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            brc,
            you say:

            (remember it’s only handful of companies that are subject to it)

            What is disconcerting is that the handful of Companies are in the main electrical power providers.

            The image at this link shows a list of just the Top 20 of those CO2 emitters. Down the side of this list I have added small black squares indicating the electrical power providers. On that list of the Top 20, 14 of them provide large scale electrical power, including the Top 4.

            Each one of just that Top 4 contributes around $500 Million, and that’s each year if this Tax continues. Those 14 electrical power providers in the Top 20 will be contributing almost $4.5 Billion, each year, and all of that will be passed directly down to consumers. I have done the conversion from the quoted $26 per tonne here to the now legislated $23 per tonne.

            That’s just from the Top 20.

            Of the 500 on the whole list, this would take into account every provider of electricity in the Country.

            Tony.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            crakar24,

            at the start each year, the Government will issue (sell) credits to the emitting entity in the amount of CO2 that they emit, one credit per tonne. Those credits will be at the set Government cost of $23 for year One, rising each subsequent year for three years, and then to move to an auction based cost.

            The emitting entity can trade those credits, or buy more of them if it wishes, from anywhere. However, at the end of the year they must hand back the same number of credits that were issued to them at the start of the year.

            Keep also in mind, that with each new year, the CO2 cap is lowered, hence less credits issued, the intent being to force the emitter to emit less.

            If they exceed that cap, they then have to hand back what they got at the start of the year, make up credits for the extra emissions, and these extra credits are charged at 1.5 times the most recent cost.

            On top of that they are fined for exceeding their cap, by an amount also 1.5 times the extra.

            On top of that, the amount they exceeded will also be deducted from their following year’s cap.

            Emitting entities can purchase overseas credits, eg investing in green schemes overseas that get them nothing more than paper credits, but these credits have less value than home grown credits. If these overseas credits are traded, then it is at the discounted price, as they not worth as much, also legislated.

            All credits can be traded as wished during the year, but the entity has to hand back credits in the amount that they emitted.

            Complex, I know, but notice how the Government is on a win win.

            Also, when it does go to an auction based system, if the ‘fundament’ falls out of the price of those credits, the Government has set a minimum cost, which also incrementally rises each year.

            Win win for Government.

            However, if say the emitting entity is a coal fired power plant, then they are operating at the standard of burning the least amount of coal to produce the most electricity, eg, what is actually being demanded.

            If their cap is lowered, they still have to burn the same amount of coal to produce the electricity that is being demanded, hence they will inevitable exceed their cap, hence the extra credits, the fine, and the lowering of the cap, and it just snowballs from there.

            The only way the power provider can stay within that lowered cap is to produce less power, eg run only three of four generators.

            Hence, less power, hence brownouts and blackouts.

            This is not just scaremongering on my part for effect. This is what will actually happen.

            They CAN’T burn less coal and still make the same power.

            That’s what the legislation is about, not lowering emissions, but making money, shirtloads of it.

            Tony.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Crakar24

            Yes Tony it is confusing,

            So once COP17 and beyond flops who do we give our 650 billion to?

            Would the knuckle heads in Canberra simply give them more permits?

            This is getting stupider by the day.

            Thanks for the info


            Report this

            00

  • #
    Catamon

    Monktons going to jump!! Yes!

    Funnily enough the sister of a girl i went to Uni with was into skydiving. Quite good at it till one day the chute didn’t open. She made quite a hole, but, lived through it and recovered after a long convalescence.

    Hope some one is waiting when he lands so they can pin the [snip baseless insult] on some of his sources and quotes.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Jo,

    Living in a political vacuum? Wondering why the science is being compromised?

    It’s not the science; the rest has been published in the public domain for all to read and digest.

    As Orwell observed, only the most intelligent could possibly believe in the unbelievable, or to that end.

    It’s not the science.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brett_McS

    It’s like watching the Soviet Union in its last days (for us *ahem* older readers). No one knew when The Wall would come down exactly but the cracks were appearing and when it did collapse it went very quickly.

    Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) calls it a “preference cascade” when suppressed (for example “non PC”) beliefs suddenly burst out en masse and everyone wonders why they so stupid for so long.

    The warmists, like the communists of that time, will have to slink off and do something else for a while.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      John Brookes

      The warmists, like the communists of that time, will have to slink off and do something else for a while.

      Until the continued warming becomes a problem…


      Report this

      00

      • #
        brc

        Which will be never, because warm is better than cold.

        Incidentally, the warming will become a problem about the same time that communism will prove to be a good idea. In both cases : NEVER


        Report this

        00

      • #

        What continued warming? The natural cycle of the planet that man has yet to understand? That warming? Again, enlighten us on what the null hypothesis is, and when it was disproven.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        amcoz

        I’ll be glad when it does turn warmer: it’s been so bloody cold this first week in December I wonder whether there’s been a Calendric change by that Due-Lie-Are, who has failed to tell us for fear of it not being ‘the right thing to do’.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    John Brookes

    You know the story about the boy who cried “wolf”? Maybe that is why the media aren’t listening to you. Maybe they are embarrassed that they made a song and dance about the original climategate lemon, just in time to create doubt before Copenhagen. But hang on, this is the media we are talking about. They have no shame or morals, so they must have another reason for not flogging climategate 2.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Richard Schaefer

      That is more than a bit ironic coming from a blind follower of the catastrafarian sect who have been crying “Wolf” then “Bear” (no, wait I meant “wolf” after all. On second thought maybe it’s “Crocodile”) since the the original “We are entering a new Ice Age” fear mongering that these frauds all started spouting decades ago.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Bush bunny

      John sometimes people will never agree when they have set their hearts, their money, their reputations on a belief. Some will die for their beliefs. But – this Carbon bubble will hurt people all around the world.
      It could cause geopolitical disharmony, when a small country with a despotic leader blames all the problems on another richer country’s abuse of carbon, is causing their droughts, floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis. And why he has a gold plated Rolls Royce, driving through streets filled with starving, homeless, children.

      The Al Gores of this world, the IPCC, the UNCCF have banked on fooling the most gullible, now most of those are waking up. It’s a disgrace and we should have more people like Joanne, Tory Aardvark, Anthony Watts, who have informed us. The EU want
      the Kyoto agreement extended, as the carbon credits scheme is failing. NZ has dropped 50%. And the BBC
      have invested a big chunk of their pension scheme in carbon credits. Clean energy manufacturers are
      worried with subsidies being withdrawn, left, right and centre.

      And the world get cooler. Meaning that although carbon emissions have not reduced, in fact increased, that we can not control the planet’s weather or climate.

      Jo, as I said years ago, when the penny drops heads will roll, and maybe innocent ones with the guilty.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pragmatic observer

    The AGW scam is like organised crime on a monumental international scale. The perpetrators have got all the bases covered and greased the palms of many with influence and wouldn’t be above the odd assasination here and there for those that rock the boat a little too much. Yhe AGW scam industry has become too big to be allowed to fail’ and the Jonovas, Andrew Bolts,Anthony Watts, Chris Moncktons etc,representing the public face of sceptisism and literally putting their necks on the block are all heroes in my book.
    Sadly I believe you are all fighting a noble but lost cause.
    Good luck and stay safe.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Brand New tool for digging into Climategate’s (both) emails, in alphabetical order and # of exchanges.

    Check it out at http://is.gd/FvShK5

    Regards!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    When scientists can all agree there is no Greenhouse Effect, then sanity can seep back into the system. Not before.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      John Brookes

      Hey Harry, have you taken into account the different albedo of earth and venus? You might want to do that. And don’t tell me that astronomers can’t work out the albedo correctly. Nice try though.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Truthseeker

        Hey John, have you taken into account the additonal analysis that Harry has done in this area? You can find it right here. You might want to do that. Nice try though.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Kevin Moore

        The angle of planet Earth in relation to the Sun is about 22.5 degrees from what might be described as the vertical. Whereas the equator of Venus is always facing straight at the Sun. Have you ever wondered how sunlights angles of incidence effect surface temperatures and global heat distribution?


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Peter R

      Way to go Harry!! Good to see you’ve thoroughly debunked the myth of plate tectonics! Wow that’s impressive!
      Obviously if you say this is an objective and verified fact then, lo it must be.

      Great to see the “intelligent design ” mob blogging on Jo Nova, that’s exactly the scientific rigour we expect here!

      PS: Did you ever wonder why they wouldn’t publish you?


      Report this

      00

    • #

      There is a Greenhouse Effect on Venus

      If Huffman was right, it would mean that albedo makes no difference to a planets temperature. That a black planet and a white planet at the same distance from the sun would be the same temperature.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        As I mentioned at Comment 7, what got me started back in early 2008 was a discussion I had with Professor Dr. Ron Nielsen, a retired Nuclear Physicist, and what prompted that small chat was that I had heard that there was Greenhouse Effect warming that had been detected on Mars, (this is back in early 2008) and as he had been talking about Global Warming in his morning radio program, I wanted to speak with him to ascertain if the situation on Earth could not be correlated in some way with what was happening on Mars. I didn’t get to speak with him on air, but he took my call off air and we spoke for almost half an hour. Yes, he had heard about Mars, but no, he didn’t think the two were related.

        So now we have Greenhouse warming on Earth, Venus and Mars.

        Is that not something that needs more thought than just a dismissive thing, and the selective thinking that it is caused by MAN MADE emissions of CO2 here on Earth.

        What is happening on Venus and Mars can’t just be dismissed offhand, because what detected that warming on Mars and Venus was Science as well.

        It only stands to reason that there is the faintest possibility that they may actually be related in some way, and it can’t be the emissions of MAN MADE CO2 on Venus and Mars as well.

        For those who are interested, Dr. Nielsen maintains a website at this link, and yes, he is (part) warmist. That website is a good one, and also has a kewl live streaming World Population counter at the bottom of that home page I have linked to.

        Professor Dr. Nielsen also has a book, titled ‘The Little Green Handbook’ which in fact, is quite a good read, but beware, it’s very difficult to get hold of.

        Tony.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Harry,

      I initially thought your suggestion was ludicrous because of the regular demonstration under controlled conditions of increasing warming by CO2. For example, the MythBusters did this on one show, though I can’t tell if this was done as stringently as is needed to disprove the greenhouse effect. I recall it being small but detectable with enough CO2.

      I also thought this hypothesis was likely to be bunk because I was sure I had seen Lumo calculating the warming from the greenhouse effect, and he does not seem like someone who is too easily fooled nor someone that is afraid of calling a spade a spade.
      So you can imagine my surprise when I went back to Lumo’s site to search for his article about the greenhouse effect and Venus, and instead of finding the article I was looking for, I found this article where Lumo seems to agree with this no-greenhouse warming on Venus hypothesis. He does not seem to have heard of you – he was referring to an article by Steven Goddard, who seemed to be saying almost the the same thing.

      This is quite perplexing. Run me through this new play.

      0) Is your entire argument built on the strawman that the term “greenhouse effect” means only CO2? If so, the rest of my line of questioning is also quite moot. If you think “greenhouse effect” means mainly warming by CO2 then it is no surprise this would not be true since water vapour is the main player there.

      1) Gas molecules absorb radiation, and long wave IR in particular, yes? On your blog you say:

      my analysis shows the CO2 temperature sensitivity, at least, is essentially zero; the huge difference in CO2 concentration between the Earth and Venus has no effect on the temperature vs. pressure profile

      Well that doesn’t disprove that CO2 absorbs radiation. All you’ve done is say CO2 must have a low warming effect, which is what most skeptics are saying. But you can warm CO2 with long wave IR. Okay so far?

      2) SW==>LW. The sun doesn’t put out much LW IR, but the official story goes that the short wave IR from the sun passes through the air virtually unmolested, only to run into the ocean or the ground and be emitted later as long wave IR – which CO2 can intercept if given half a chance. Regardless of “global warming”, this convoluted wavelength switching can happen and does happen, agreed?

      3) Things To Do With a Photon. LWIR hits a CO2 molecule, and in my simple mind one of two outcomes could occur: either an atom or bond gets extra charge, which may split a bond or boost an atom to an ion, or else the photon would impart some rotational kinetic energy onto the molecule. If the charge outcome occurs, surely within a nanosecond the molecule will re-emit radiation at the same wavelength as it just absorbed, and there would have been no warming effect (yet, but it gets another roll of the gas dice). But we know by observation that CO2 can be warmed with IR. That can only occur if the outcome is the rotational option, and not the re-emission option, because then the extra internal rotational kinetic energy will spread into a statistical increase in the air average kinetic energy (ie temperature increase) after the spinning CO2 has collided with some N2 and pals. Are you saying this does not occur? Because that would be rather… impossible.

      4) The 2nd Law Also Applies. In spite of all this radiative transfer going on, by saying the greenhouse effect is zero you are implying that at equilibrium the sunlight promptly escapes back into space without leaving any thermal side-effects via the atmosphere. We know the equilibrium is established and incoming energy escapes to space, but the extra time it lingers due to the troposphere is enough to raise the temperature, until the ∂Q/∂t ∝ (Ta – Tb)^4 rule kicks in and outgoing equals incoming. The equilibrium temperature must be higher. It sounds like you are basing your entire temperature argument on the ideal gas equation, so it is no surprise it doesn’t predict greenhouse warming because there’s no radiative transfer implied in that equation, just work of some kind.

      5) Not All Molecules Are Equal. You say on your blog:

      the thermodynamic effect of increasing CO2 (and other triatomic, or “greenhouse” gas) concentration is simply to increase the efficiency/speed of heat transfer within the atmosphere. As one of the earlier commenters has noted, the temperature on the dark side of Venus is just as high as on the sunlit side, and I attribute that to the increased efficiency of heat transfer due to the high concentration of CO2 in that atmosphere. So, in your terms, increased CO2 does NOT affect the “energy balance”, it only quickens the attainment of the balance governed by the lapse rate structure of the atmosphere.

      So you seem to imply the Earth would still be average 288K at 101.3kPa regardless of whether we had 70% nitrogen, 70% water vapour, or 70% CO2 for our fluid envelope? I find those both hard to believe. I guess that is mainly because the previous steps are hard to believe, plus there is the issue of intercepting radiation. It is as unlikely as saying that putting 6 Sumo wrestlers on the back row of the rugby team would have the same end result as 6 scrawny weedlings or 12 Sumo wrestlers and no forwards. In the greenhouse game the ability of different kinds of molecules to transfer radiation into temperature by absorption is important. CO2 is not the same as N2. I’m not even going to mention albedo. If the sun was a pulsar with the same W/m^2 insolation as today then Indonesia would be sub zero cold as there would not be enough radio-absorbing molecules in the air to heat up the surface. The molecular composition of the atmosphere matters because if the gases can take what the sun is giving then the surface air temperature is higher.

      6) Have you given much thought to the Faint Young Sun Paradox?

      7) Rejecting Cherries On Venus. I left the best until last. Isn’t it possible that the greenhouse effect occurs in the last 200 millibar line of Venus data? With there being so much CO2, you would predict the top layers would absorb it and there would be almost nothing to trickle down through the other 90% of the atmosphere, so with all this shielding going on maybe it is no surprise the 800 to 300 mb range is 4 or 5 degrees cooler than the insolation equation estimates based on earth? Could you not use Venus data from less than 300mb pressure to argue that the composition of the atmosphere is important, and even… that there is a greenhouse effect occurring?

      Care to respond to any or all of the above?

      Sorry if any of my questions are annoying. I am just not quite convinced (yet) that this hypothesis matches all the evidence the way you say it does.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        Andrew,

        Your questions about theory are generally irrelevant, because I have only brought forth the FACT that the Venus/Earth temperature ratio, at equal pressures in the two atmospheres and over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures, is explained PRECISELY AND SOLELY by the ratio of their distances from the Sun (excepting only within the thick cloud layer on Venus, between about 600 and 300 mb, where the Venus temperature is about 5 degrees COOLER than expected solely from its lesser distance from the Sun). I will not argue theories with anyone, because you all only confuse yourselves by taking sides on theoretical points; there is no taking sides with the facts (all who do so are incompetent), and I consider those facts brought out by my Venus/Earth comparison to be the definitive ones for correcting the current beliefs in the greenhouse effect. With that understood, here are my main answers to your questions:

        First, your references to Lubos Motl and Steven Goddard are irrelevant. Everyone needs to stop looking to their favorite “authorities” to do their thinking for them, and then spouting their dogma as the standard for scientific thought; that cannot be overemphasized. I did my Venus/Earth analysis precisely because, throughout 2010, Goddard and others were not making strong enough points about what the existence of the hydrostatic, tropospheric temperature lapse rate structure of the atmosphere meant for a belief in the CO2 greenhouse effect. I addressed the difference between my stand against the greenhouse effect, following my Venus/Earth analysis, and Goddard’s, in the comments section following my analysis; Goddard did not deny the greenhouse effect, for example, he only argued about its size. When I did my analysis, I was pleasantly surprised to find there was simply no room for a greenhouse effect, or an albedo effect, in the observed Venus/Earth temperature ratio. Other voices critical of the greenhouse effect–such as Jo Nova’s–are weak and just as misinformed as the alarmists on this subject.

        0) Your first question is disingenuous, since it is the greenhouse believers who have made CO2 the main culprit (obviously for political reasons, it should be clear by now). Since Venus has 96.5% CO2, while Earth has only 0.04%, yet their temperature vs. pressure curves, when corrected only for their different distances from the Sun, are right on top of each other (particularly outside of the Venus cloud layer), then obviously that difference in CO2 concentration has no warming effect on Venus at all. But this result just as clearly means there is no water vapor greenhouse warming on Venus either.

        But time out: We come to a good point to disabuse you and any other reader here about a common misunderstanding. Absorption of IR by CO2 and other gases does NOT constitute the greenhouse effect propounded by the climate “consensus”, of INCREASED atmospheric warming with an INCREASE in the concentration of “greenhouse gases”. I made this point in comments on my own site, and here on jonova in response to the post “There is a greenhouse effect on Venus” a short while ago. But those who have put their faith in “consensus” theories (even the “lukewarm” version) will not listen; you are too full of what you think you know, you can’t be bothered with new knowledge that specifically contradicts what you have been taught.

        The troposphere is fundamentally warmed, to its ability to retain heat, by IR absorption–but of INCIDENT SOLAR IR, not by IR from the surface. That is what “the Venus/Earth temperature ratio depends only on the ratio of their distances from the Sun” necessarily means. The atmosphere is not warmed from the surface, but by direct solar heating–and this was indicated, even before my Venus/Earth analysis made it obvious, by the existence of the hydrostatic temperature lapse rate structure, which needs no greenhouse effect to explain atmospheric temperatures. I couldn’t understand why so many did not see that, so I did my Venus/Earth analysis–and found the facts that disprove the greenhouse effect, period. Greenhouse believers are characteristically deaf, dumb and blind to any direct absorption of solar IR, much less to its true status as the fundamental atmospheric warming mechanism–I think its because “explanations” of the greenhouse effect don’t mention it. Climate scientists have gotten their physics upside down.

        1) Given what I just wrote, your comment here that “Well that doesn’t disprove that CO2 absorbs radiation” is, of course, lame. The “greenhouse effect” (one more time) is not about absorption of IR by atmospheric gases, it is about whether increasing those absorbing gases can increase the ability of the atmosphere to retain heat, thus raise its temperature. The hydrostatic temperature lapse rate structure strongly indicates the answer is no, and my Venus/Earth analysis confirms that answer as a hard fact for those two real atmospheres. I don’t have all the answers, I basically just have that fact, which invalidates the greenhouse hypothesis as used in climate science.

        That’s enough for now. You may speculate on just what gases are contributing to the fundamental warming of the atmosphere yourself; I am not ready to do that (even though I am well aware that the most likely candidate appears to be water vapor). I will stick with the definitive fact that disconfirms the greenhouse effect, unless and until I have all the answers.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Jim Stewart

    While wishing Chris & Craig, I doubt if any coverage in Australia will be as good as Pat Michael’s interview with Alan Jones last week. Hear here.

    Even better would be wider publishing & broadcasting of Gore’s ‘hockey stick’ data corrected to remove all the data disputed by either side.

    Why not start on this site?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JMD

    What do skeptics have to do to break the spell of government appointed experts?

    What.. haven’t I stated several times that ‘the science’ has nothing to do with government enforced climate change? Skeptics could immolate themselves on the parliament house steps & no government appointed expert would give a shit.

    You’re smarter than this Jo but by all means keep hacking at the branches.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jim Stewart

    That should begin “While wishing Chris & Craig well, …”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    Email 1353
    Both Wally and Alley seem convinced that the climate of Greenland changed by 10 C in the space of 2-3 years at times in the past (Y Dryas etc). [Phil Jones]

    That was, if I recall correctly, -10C

    That would even convince John Brookes (maybe)!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      John Brookes

      It might convince me that very rapid climate change can happen, and that would be a huge problem. What should it convince me of?

      Besides, this must be a joke email. Surely there aren’t two climate scientists call Wally and Alley?


      Report this

      00

      • #

        Besides, this must be a joke email.

        Denialist.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Cynthia

        Wallace Smith Broecker… discussed in this link, criticised for “Wally seminars.”

        http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0988831541.txt&search=glacier

        Hope the link came through. Otherwise, look him up in a searchable Climate II database. He’s usually called either Wally or Broecker since these guys knew each other well enough to be casual. The discussion about Wally related to dendrochronology and MWP. Interesting.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Cynthia

        “I looked at some of the stuff on the Climate Audit web site. I’d really
        like to talk to a few of these ‘Auditors’ in a dark alley.” (NOPE, wrong alley, but that was in a Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:58:29 pm Climate II email.)

        The real Alley is Richard B. Alley. Google him up and search a Climate II database. He is a person whose research suggested abrupt climate change.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Steve Meikle

    If you know about religious fanaticism, and I do as I was one for long enough (i mean real religion not the ersatz cult of AGW) you will know that the true religious fanatic does NOT listen to ANYTHING that contradicts his delusion.

    Thus Lord Monckton and co are simply doing a stunt, risking their lives (I would not jump out of a plane for anything at all) for no good purpose.

    The science is settled. AGW is a crock. But too many scientists refuse to face the simple evidence and facts, and they appeal to their position, which is one of all those other tricks of the corrupt priesthood that they are. I have seen this many times before in areas of real religion.

    But there is none so blind as those who refuse to see.

    No one will be forced to see anything by any means. In fact it might backfire and the skydive be seen as a sign of desperation from those who are wrong and know it.

    This is not the case, of course. But why give the warmists the chance to try it?

    Persuading people of the truth is usually an uphill battle that is usually lost


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Grant (NZ)

      It must be so depressing for the zealots making these annual pilgrimages to Copenhagen, Cancun, Durban or wherever. All they ever hear is bad news and the news is getting worse. And probably most of them realise that there is some serious doubt about the line they are being spun – so they are grappling with their consciences as well.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Jo,

    Many times, my research has been look on as interesting.
    But it has absolutely no bearing on temperature data. So, it is ignored.
    Created such a massive amount of knowledge that is far different from this current science that I think I’ll start to call it “Joe’s World”.

    Unfortunately, your all in it. :-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    the MSM has been furiously trying to portray China as separating from India and the BRICs countres and offering hope for a deal in Durban. only WUWT read China’s position accurately, and now…

    5 Dec: Times of India: Nitin Sethi: Durban talks: China scorches rumours of rift with India
    DURBAN: China scorched all rumours that it had moved away from India’s position on Kyoto Protocol and a new global deal on Monday…
    His statement came a day after developed countries had attempted to paint India as the bad boy of climate claiming it was the only impediment to talks on a new global deal in Durban and China had taken a more flexible stance…
    But on the weekend news reports originating from Durban suggested that China had diluted its stance on this and was willing to a new deal right away.
    Zhenhua made it clear that it had always been in favour of a new global deal but only after 2020 and that too with several important riders – most of which the western countries are inimical to completely at the moment. He noted that fast start and long term funds and technology transfer – as envisioned under the Cancun Agreements needed to be operationalised too before talks on a new deal begin in 2015.
    India has stated exactly the same on various ocassions before but some developed countries have attempted to draw out a rift in the BASIC ranks, which negotiators in the developing world suggest are early signs of Europe being isolated yet again at the climate talks with its trenchant position…
    Zhenhua said it was important to first see the existing commitments – under Kyoto Protocol and Cancun Agreements – first be fulfilled and the review of the existing UN convention show how well the developed countries had done in meeting their obligations.
    *****The Indian position also got support from the African groups and other developing countries with the leader of the African group of countries saying Europe was interested in the carbon trade and not in Kyoto Protocol likening it to someone loving mangoes but disliking a mango tree.
    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/developmental-issues/Durban-talks-China-scorches-rumours-of-rift-with-India/articleshow/10995262.cms

    never underestimate the good sense of other countries.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Norfolk Dumpling

    Phil, you are being rather forgiving about our specialised UK brand of wooden-tops.
    As well as Bill and Ben and all the flower-pot mwomen, did you mean “Call-me-Dave” Shameron, EcoLooney “Nil points” Buff-Hooney, the Miliprat Brothers, Leg-over Clegg and, not to be forgotten, Claude Balls or Lord Fisty Brestclot, God’s gift to parliamentary floozies looking for a good time!
    Sorry JoNova, I could not resist!
    Now try and get those facial images and names out of your minds!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Richard Jewson, Chair of the Council at the UEA is also chairman of Archant newspaper publishers.

    Very convenient.

    Archant publishes dozens of newspapers and magazines in London, East Anglia and the south-west of England. Jewson uses his control of Archant to produce global warming propaganda and prevent the opposition having its say.

    Click my user name for more.

    .


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Archant publishes dozens of newspapers and magazines in London, East Anglia and the south-west of England.

      Yes, such seditious publications as the Weston and Somerset Mercury, and the Hampstead & Highgate Express, both well known for spreading rebellious thoughts throughout the geriatric demographic.

      Mind you, they also publish the Evening News and the Evening Star, but nobody reads them after they have reached puberty and graduated from the LSE, in whatever that combination those events occur.

      Also, interestingly, if you do a search for any of the dozen words, or so, that have become the signature for the climate scam, you get zero hits. So if you are right, and he is producing “global warming propaganda”, with a cat-up-tree twist, then he does not appear to be very good at it.


      Report this

      00

  • #
  • #
  • #
    Peter Miller

    The beaches in Durban are little better than low grade sewerage. Better keep their clothes on.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Norfolk Dumpling

    EUSSR ‘AGW is a Fraud’
    Thanks for that knowledge about Archant. I am fully registered as a legitimate ‘blogger’ for comments in the Eastern Daily Press [Archant publishing] but have progressively found that my engineering viewpoints of anti-AGW/CC/wind power stations are rejected by the so-called moderator.
    Although I am on State pension I have wondered how much it would cost me in a bribe, or using a pseudonym, to get even one letter published about the truth into the letters pages of the EDP; I am obviously a ‘persona non grata’ as far as the technically illiterate editor is concerned. And don’t forget the EDP has its own “green” publication and was voted the “greenest” local news-rag.
    JoNova, we get these lack of publication of alternative views across the world. In my naivety I thought the Press was impartial in the light of press freedom and its not wanting to be shackled down.
    So columns such as yours create an excellent passage for sensible trained like minds to communicate. Thanks for that.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Jake

      Nice to see you here too.
      Are you saying that Karel has stopped you from commenting on his EER articles (amongst others)? I read that the usual suspect got really upset with you last time.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Norfolk Dumpling

        Hello Jake.
        Likewise.
        I don’t have a problem on EER at the moment but the Archant-published EDP does not want truth broadcast.
        I will continue to rub EER bloggers up the wrong way if all we have are economic commentators or economists sounding off about science with their heads stuck in the usual position! At least the articles give blogging space for the initiated.
        I have to take the view that certain bloggers are upset because of technical illiteracy but at least, if you show me to be wrong technically, I will turn round and say “You are so right, thank you for teaching me.”
        It’s rather a sobering thought that, the older you get, the more you realise you don’t know, but I can appreciate the patience and wisdom of the engineers who taught me what I know when I was younger and I believe they taught well.
        Must get this in first!
        Happy Christmas all you decent bloggers.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    1DandyTroll

    When the terribly evil horde of rational realist say they will be descending from the heavens above on a particular date, they actually do descend from the heavenly skies on that particular date. Not like the green socialists of self proclaimed planet savers who, not says, but shrieks out date after date for debate, or doom and gloom even, still they never show.

    You know the hippies of green socialists don’t have all the faculties intact when they’ve been screaming wolf for some 40 odd years, and still no wolf.

    But what if the wolf comes, this time, the leetle hippie asks? Reaching out his hands, ready to grab my money.

    I say on to him, You dumb hippie, if you’re that worried about the shadow of your own insanity, and with the money you stole the first time, you should’a put up a god damn fence!

    :p


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Madjak

    An interesting but altogether unsuprising piece in the australian today.

    Honestly, if activists are funding your research, wtf do you expect will happen?

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/researchers-clash-over-roo-harvesting/story-e6frgcjx-1226215542429


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Madjak

    sorry for the doble post. Heres’ another interesting one i should this paper be published?

    http://www.theage.com.au/technology/sci-tech/armageddon-super-virus-recipe-keep-secret-or-publish-20111206-1og76.html

    What would happen if the eugenics fanatics got hold of it?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Casandra

    I dont think you need to worry anymore the Durban thing is very low key almost everywhere, even MSM is not reporting it ergo AGW is almost dead


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Reed Coray

    Jo, I know your statement: “And if that doesn’t work, what next? Do they take off their clothes?!” applied to skeptics not warmists, but your statement triggered a horrible vision–Michael Mann sans clothes. I’ve often wondered what an unbounded ego looks like. If you could buy Michael Mann for his real worth and sell him for his self perceived worth, one such buy/sell transaction would make you rich.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    The Black Adder

    Gday Jo,

    After a few weeks of trying, I have finally cracked it in todays “The Cairns Post”

    Letter of the day in the Opinion section.

    The second round of Climategate 2.0 material has been released on the internet in the last several days. To say it is explosive, is an understatement.
    Andrew Bolts excellent article in last Wednesdays Cairns Post said it all. He details emails that confirm that certain scientists are indeed corrupted by money, power and influence in making decisions regarding the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
    The IPCC Report is what PM Gilliard bases her Carbon Tax on and declares that the “Science is settled”. It isn’t, PM. You are defrauding the people of Australia.
    For example, 1 email says “…Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and discount a wealth of others. This is downright dangerous…”
    While another states “…in regards to the IPCC Models, some tuning or very good luck involved. I doubt the modeling world can get away with this much longer.”
    All of the Doomsday scenarios that the IPCC predicted, have not eventuated. They were all based on computer models, not the real world. Natural Variability (ie. Clouds, Volcanoes and the Sun) in the weather is far more important.
    The public is being led down the garden path in relation to this Carbon Tax and the great fraud that is Man Made Global Warming.
    Of course, we all want a clean world, but the misinformation in this debate is very high. Open your eyes and research the scam yourself.
    Australia is the first country in the world to impose such a draconian tax on its people and will be the first to fall off the cliff

    Hopefully soon, the message starts getting out there…end the scam.

    Election Now Juliar!


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Bulldust

    I have probably done an unwise thing and posted at The Conversation, which appears to be a very blinkered CAGW site, but the rubbish posted by an academic today was just to juicy to resist:

    http://theconversation.edu.au/how-david-beckham-caused-global-warming-the-man-u-climate-model-4548

    So I said:

    This piece is interesting for a number of reasons. I find the author’s contradictory stances (being polite) most remarkable.

    For example, on the one hand it is clear that he believes that “sceptical” (apparently scare quotes are required here) web sites are not to be trusted and full of whacky models and theories; but equally, if not wildly moreso, apocryphal web sites like SkS are to be quoted without question. SkS has been proven to edit contributors posts and retrospectively alter OP posts after comments have been received. Putting aside the dodgy explanations posited at SkS, this is quite unprofessional behaviour (once again, being exceptionally polite here). This behaviour somehow warrants the site owner getting a prize for science communication.

    I find it all the more remarkable that an academic would frequently refer to Wikipedia on a contentious issue. I accept that Wikipedia is a decent reference for items which are simple points of fact, like the decay series for U-235 for example, but on issues that are contentious it is an exceptionally poor reference. We need not go into the edit history of a certain Mr Connolley to prove this point, surely?

    The author goes on to say that many “sceptics” are not climate scientists/experts. What he does not acknowledge is that many “sceptics” ARE in fact experts and scientists specialising in climate science and related fields. Besides, the implied appeal to authority is not a valid basis for argument.

    I am also curious why the author does not explain that complex models are generally extremely sensitive to input parameters. I am sure that as a physicist he would be acutely aware of this fact. Add to this that many of the parameters in revered climate models are not known with a high degree of certainty, is it not logical to assume that the output of said models is highly uncertain? This uncertainty is woefully under-reported in the media and presentations by those who strongly support the CAGW hypothesis.

    All in all a more scientific approach to this debate would have been more helpful …


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Bulldust

      It seems my comment hasn’t appeared at The Conversation … perhaps they “moderate” much like RC or SkS. I am not sure what was so offensive about my comment that it needed to go down the memory hole…


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Bulldust

        Perhaps it was their login system that was faulty the first time. Seemed to take this time /shrug.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Gee Aye

          If it was your first comment it can take time otherwise comments go straight up unmoderated i.e. offensive posts are post-moderated (if that is a real expression). Is this what happened with your subsequent posts?


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Crakar24

        I had better luck, the principle of Nuriootpa High school has been personnally trained by the great man himself. As part of his contract he is now required to spread the word of the apocolypse to come.

        He wrote an opinion peice in the local paper linking all kinds of weather to AGW (its a sad day when the warmbots are reduced to this level). Anyway i responded via the letters section and they printed it………must be a deniers paper better the team onto it quick smart.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Ross

    Slightly off topic — there has been the suggestion that the political aims of some of those behind the AGW scam was a form of Global Governance.
    Has everyone taken notice of the Merkel/Sarkozy proposal for solving the EU financial crisis? The way I understand it , “economic” control of EU countries will effectively be run from Brussels. Look familiar.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      KeithH

      The political aims of Global Governance are more than a suggestion Ross. The UN and relevant proponents are quite open about their aims. Google ‘The Green Agenda – Agenda 21′ for the full history, read up and judge for yourself!


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Norfolk Dumpling

        Well said, KeithH and well read.
        The only sensible thing to come out of Brussels was the sprout but, like the EuroZone, it emits a smelly load of hot air.
        I can’t find any “jesus” sandals wide enough for my feet!
        So what do I do now.
        I believe in the history of climate change.
        I don’t believe in AGW.
        There is nothing wrong with trying to live as a low carbon usage human being but coal does make a nice open fire in our cold rural situation – I won’t burn trees because they are too precious for the cycle of life.
        Carbon Dioxide is the food of life and not a pollutant.
        I live in a UK autocracy with a PM scared to call the bluff of the LieDems or pull out of the Merkelozy LoveFest.
        And none of my children are members of Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth or WWF, thank goodness.
        My wife is a dragon!


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Crakar24

    Written with “Mission task verbs” (Army talk)

    I think this whole Durbin thing is a shit show (1) and nothing more than a dick dance (2) with a bit of befuckle thrown in (3) and capped off with some jumping through your ass (4) and it is going to take a whole lot of unf*&^k to fix (5).

    (1) A Shit Show is an effect generated by leveraging concurrent, successive,
    cumulative, and synergistic tactical actions and/or effects to generate a selfsustaining, morale-crushing, resource-consuming, vortex of futility.

    (2) To Dick Dance is an action to deceive an audience into believing that the
    individual or unit conducting it has a plan, and is not, in fact, standing knee deep
    in syrup.

    (3) To Befuckle is an effect to confuse, as with glib statements or arguments. While
    it can be used at sub-unit level, it is generally used at formation level or higher.

    (4) To Jump Through Your Ass is an action to apply sufficient staff action, treachery,
    and bullying to obtain approval for a plan, regardless of a complete lack of merit.

    (5) To Un-F&*&^k is an action, normally achieved through Senior NCO back channels,
    taken to reverse all higher level actions and effects, thereby salvaging some
    measure of mission success.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Skeptics leap from planes to see if zombie media will finally notice ClimateGate emails Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Crakar24

    Oh by the way i bought an old Jayco Swan the other day got it for the right price so will now spend a bit on it to get it looking good. I needed to know what year it was made and when i looked i found it was 1984. Coincedence……….i think not. This is definitively a religious sign what do you think JB you have seen plenty in the last couple of years.

    For example http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/la-nina-is-behind-record-summer-lows/story-e6frg6nf-1226216722372


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Juliar

    I am not sure if any of you have seen this but the link below is of a debate between Christopher Monckton & Dr Richard Denniss (who is a former economist for the Greens & Democraps). The youtube video goes for an hour and I think it is pretty clear who wins the debate. Video Here


    [never fear ED is here]ED


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Norfolk Dumpling

      Just what the Lord ordered.
      Dr. Denniss seems another one like “Lord” Stern, the economist, whose review for the UK government has attracted derision over the years.
      Has Dr. Richard Denniss, yet another economist, followed Lord Monckton’s advices and actually bothered to read “wide” both scientifically and economically about the subject.
      His 1,000 climate scientists should be read against John McLeans revelations about the IPCC make-up.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Truthseeker

    Jo, the good lord has a very alarming piece on Durban over at WUWT. You will probably want to have a thread for it as well.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    Does Monckton realise, he’s missing all the action in Europe right now, where it really is at.
    Cameron says No.
    I’m sure it will gladden LM’s heart, knowing that he has successfully turned UNIPCC et al. into a sideshow, while his Prime Minister has managed , however clumsily, to grow a pair.
    We know he’s only there to keep an eye on the remaining crazed nutters who still attend that the BBC won’t report on (apart from their own).

    I salute Lord Monckton for being instrumental in demolishing the Climate scam while exposing & changing sentiment towards centralist beaureaucratic authorities generally.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] enligt mitt tycke roligaste och mest spektakulära upptåget var dock när Lord Monckton hoppade fallskärm i ett försök att stoppa [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I’ve just read that the main protagonists are being kept in at the end of IPCC Schoolies Week in Durban. (Die Zeit article in German) “UN Chaos at Climate Summit in Durban: Failure threatens”
    It’s been reported that delegates partied all Friday night until 5 on Saturday morning, without a result. I’ve heard that schoolies can be like that.

    The subtext of the article seems to be that Greenpeace is running the event; imploring German Chancelloress Merkel to talk to US President Obama and to rescue the plans. (Greenpeace, being politically active, is having its status as a “charity” questioned in several countries.)

    Apparently lots of delegates couldn’t reschedule their flight (take that whichever way ;-) ) from Durban so now only those with nothing better to do are left debating about how to solve the problem of almost nobody thinking that they’ll be a winner in that game. This seems to be upsetting Greenpeace a lot. German Environment Minister Röttgen changed his air travel arrangements; apparently without due regard for the global, per-capita lifetime CO2 ration he’d called for just a few weeks ago. (Obligatory Dilbert reference)


    Report this

    00