Heading for the exits

Climate agency going up in flames

Exit of Canada’s expert a sure sign IPCC in trouble

A catastrophic heat wave appears to be closing in on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. How hot is it getting in the scientific kitchen where they’ve been cooking the books and spicing up the stew pots? So hot, apparently, that Andrew Weaver, probably Canada’s leading climate scientist, is calling for replacement of IPCC leadership and institutional reform.

If Andrew Weaver is heading for the exits, it’s a pretty sure sign that the United Nations agency is under monumental stress.

Mr. Weaver, after all, has been a major IPCC science insider for years. He is Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis at the University of Victoria, mastermind of one of the most sophisticated climate modelling systems on the planet, and lead author on two recent landmark IPCC reports.

For him to say, as he told Canwest News yesterday, that there has been some “dangerous crossing” of the line between climate advocacy and science at the IPCC is stunning in itself.

Not only is Mr. Weaver an IPCC insider. He has also, over the years, generated his own volume of climate advocacy that often seemed to have crossed that dangerous line between hype and science.

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=90f8dd19-4a79-4f8f-ab42-b9655edc289b#ixzz0dpiB0tX3

About these ads

129 thoughts on “Heading for the exits

  1. Congratulations!

    Much, much more filth will be exposed as the Climategate iceberg melts away under the spotlight of public attention.

    Keep up the good work,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  2. This illustrates why it’s important that we not let Pachauri be the fall guy… the IPCC and it’s process are wholly corrupt. The IPCC was designed to corrupt science and it enables this type of behaviour worldwide. Don’t let those complicit with fraud off the hook.

  3. Well that didn’t come a moment too soon.

    The environmentalist spin on this one is going to be something to savour since they’ve been using the “it’s not as bad as it looks…let’s all take a deep breath and ignore it” line for a little too long now.

  4. Why do I have Mr. Rogers singing “It’s a beautiful day in the neighborhood” stuck in my head? The unfortunate part about all of this is that no one abandoned ship until the proof became so overwhelming they could not hide anymore. If this came about because of due diligence and a desire for unbiased research on the part of the IPCC and their cohorts I’d feel much better. Still, it’s a “victory” I will enjoy.

  5. The IPCC needs to be closed down. Whoever it is who runs it in the future, it will be a very long time before anyone will believe anything it barfs out. And just changing its name wont work either.

    And while I’m on the subject, close down the UN too. Self serving politicians to a man…

  6. I’m not that surprised about the “discovery” that the IPCC is dressing up science as bald-faced advocacy. However, we must continue the pile-on until world leaders see the bad politics at play here and abandon policies based on false claims of man-made climate change.

  7. I used to be a AGW believer, up until I had the time and motivation to check out the science. One book I bought was Weavers book. It took about 4 to 6 months of reading of other books and blogs before I came to the view that Weaver was misleading me in his book(eg, his explaination of Manns bogus hockey stick, and McIntyres work). Further, he directed me to two blogs, RealClimate and DeSmogBlog for further information. That was a misdirect, for both blog sites spew out only one side of the discussion through the screening of comments, and the banning of posters who disagree.

    How Weaver is allowed to teach at the University of Victoria is beyond me. He brings discredit to what is called a “higher education”.

  8. And the UK’s chief scientific adviser, John Beddington, is today calling for reform of the IPCC in the Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7003622.ece and even that sceptics can sometimes be right!

    “He said that public confidence in climate science would be improved if there were more openness about its uncertainties, even if that meant admitting that sceptics had been right on some hotly-disputed issues. ”

    It’s less than 2 months since Gordon Brown called climate sceptics ‘flat-earthers’ !

  9. The name of the IPCC is fundamentally flawed. By putting “Climate Change” in the organisational name, their reports require a pre-determined conclusion.

    Similarly, USHCN temperature data is kept and manipulated by the “Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center.” Shouldn’t it be the Temperature Analysis Center? Their reason to exist centers around CO2 warming.

  10. Hmmm – maybe a lot of people have been quietly waiting for an exit to appear so they can use it.

    It seems to me that the whole thing has been obvious for years (as stated before, I used to believe the AGW hypothesis until I actually started looking at it). If you’re a scientist who is supposed to be studying AGW then you probably figured it out some time ago. But nobody wants to be “first”, since they’ve all seen what happens to anyone who speaks out.

    So yeah, hold open a clearly marked “EXIT” sign, and step out of the way, because you might get trampled in the mad rush.

    Now they can just say “oh, those CRU/GISS/IPCC people were falsifying data, but we didn’t know before.”

  11. Mr Weaver’s advocacy may have contributed to the intolerance of climate scepticism in the past However many of the posters on this blog have gone through some form of awakening in our attitudes to CAGW (mostly due to Steve McIntyre in my case) and I welcome Mr Weaver’s realignment with the scientific method. However I reserve the right to withdraw my welcome if his enlightenment does not prove to be genuine.

  12. Running for the exit is NOT redemption. Weaver if you were wrong, you are bad news. It means we were in the wrong if we trusted you. Andy is added to the list of tarnished peer review clowns.

    Toyota is recalling cars by the millions today. Is andrew weaver going to recall books?

    No. There is no reason to. You can peddle anything you want.

  13. I am trying hard not to criticize the flaws in an “intergalactic ‘ballistic’ missle.”

    It is clear that the IPCC has failed in its mission:
    1) We are not warming – their mission has been cancelled.
    2) They cannot show warming legitimately – mission gone.
    3) Fabricating science always is exposed eventually
    – adulterated mission failed.

    Perhaps it is time to dissolve the IPCC. It has certainly done more damage than good.

    I have no sympathy for good or bad scientists who were funded through the IPCC. It is time to seek finding elsewhere.

    It is a specious argument to keep the IPCC going with the wishy-washy approach that dissolving it does away with some jobs. It is not mission of the IPCC is not to create jobs. Put the money back into the taxpayers’ pockets and jobs will be created.

    Good scientists will find jobs. The others, hey . . . find some one who cares.

  14. I enjoy being a flat earther at least I know which way is up!

    Speculation is being passed off as Science. see below to Met office and I have had no reply!

    On the 24th November the British Met office issued a joint press statement on Climate Science. I can only assume this is in the wake of the CRU e-mail hack and was an attempt to assure the public on the veracity and openness of Climate Science

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091124a.html

    Authors were those of the highest reputation:-
    Prof. Julia Slingo, Chief Scientist, Met Office
    Prof. Alan Thorpe, Chief Executive, Natural Environment Research Council
    Lord Rees, President, the Royal Society

    This statement included the following passage:-

    “Year-on-year the evidence is growing that damaging climate and weather events — potentially intensified by global warming — are already happening and beginning to affect society and ecosystems. This includes:
    In the UK, heavier daily rainfall leading to local flooding such as in the summer of 2007.”
    Anybody reading this passage is left with the strong impression that Scientific Evidence existed that proved the floods of 2007 were caused by Climate Change or were part of likely climate change scenarios for the UK. I am further confused because the next line down says that the summer drought and heat wave of 2003 was also part of likely climate change scenarios. So according to the statement a cool wet summer in UK and a hot dry summer are both indicators of trends caused by CO2 induced climate change !!!!!!!

    I was unlucky enough to be directly involved in the 2007 Avon/Severn flooding, I got my feet wet! so I did, out of interest, keep up to date with any science reporting of the likely cause of these floods.

    An excellent scientific analysis was produced on the 2007 floods by CEH a part of Prof. Alan Thorpe’s Natural Environment Research Council.

    http://www.ceh.ac.uk/news/news_archive/2008_news_item_05.html

    And I quote from the press release for this report:
    Lead author, Terry Marsh, comments: “The river floods of summer 2007 were a very singular episode, which does not form part of any clear historical trend or show consistency with currently favoured climate change scenarios.”

    Mr Marsh adds: “The exceptional river flooding last summer fuelled speculation that flood risk is increasing due to global warming. Due to the inherent variability of the UK climate, any extreme hydrological event cannot readily be linked directly to climate change.”

    Are these 3 eminent scientists reassuring me on the validity of climate science by choosing to illustrate their statement with events that their own peer reviewed science says are not part of likely Climate Change scenarios.Or perhaps you can point me to the scientific studies that this passage in the statement were based on.

    So what do I make of all of that? It diminishes the credibility of the whole Climate Science statement. I find little wrong with the rest of the statement.

  15. Ruth: don’t forget the numerous government ministers who have said “the science is settled”.

  16. LOL…for you ‘deniers’ and ‘contrarians’, you will found this interesting…

    Poorly sited U.S. temperature instruments not responsible for artificial warming

    http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1419

    Funny how station maintenance was not really discussed. He even goes as far as to site NCDC analyses and state and poorly sited stations actually measure cooler temperatures….yes, you read that right. Anyway, there is a glancing attempt to tie Anthony to the fossil-fuel and tobacco industries through the Heartland Institute. It would be interesting to see what the readers here think…

  17. Waterloo, Ontario – Andrew Weaver, who was among a select group of scientists that shared the Nobel Peace Prize with former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore for their work on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), will speak at The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) October 28, as part of CIGI’s 2008-2009 Signature Lecture Series

    Why am I not surprised? These are the core members that can proffer “peer review”.

  18. Thank you for posting this excellent essay from the National Post. Weaver deserves to be exposed for what he is and Corcoran does a superb job. Ironic that UVic’s (and Canada’s) most vocal spokesman turns out to have the least amount of backbone of the bunch. Any takers that Weaver will simply turn back into an oceanographer as if nothing had happened?

  19. From the IPCC web site: “Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers.”

    Translated: We are political wolves tending the scientific sheep.

    Conclusion: Scientists answering to politicians was destined to turn into politicians wearing lab coats.

  20. I think we should just cut to the chase here and call it Climastrology.

    “When the moon is in the 7th house and CRU aligns with NASA GISS . . . ”

    Mayb we could make it into a broadway musical.

  21. Atheist Ranter (09:20:04) :

    The IPCC needs to be closed down.
    Don’t you think it would be better to close down the United Nations, the source of all evil, the progressives’ hiding place?
    Sometimes I wonder if Al-Qaida hit the wrong building in NY.

  22. That’s a pretty stunning admission from Dr. Weaver who’s been an insider for so long. He’s frequently quoted up here in the great white north as a climate change expert and Nobel prize winner. I must say however, he frequently crosses the line between activist and scientist.

  23. Still waiting for Hansen and Mann to go away(hopefully prison), but this is still moving in the proper direction. Kinda fun to watch the rats abandon ship!! Let the weasel dances begin!!!

  24. I think this just means means Mr Weaver is the biggest coward amongst the rats, or is it the biggest rat amongst the..

  25. “he frequently crosses the line between activist and scientist”

    To call him a scientist is an insult to honest scientists. Why did he accept Manns hockey stick? Why did he not do a check of it, considering the huge change in the temperature reconstruction from previous IPCC reports?

    B.C. seems to have gone to pot imo. D Suzuki has this stellar reputation as a scientist, yet he does not do any work to check Manns hockey stick. Instead, he talks about “jailing” deniers!

    Eco nut jobs seem to have a cozy home in B.C. It is truly strange.

  26. Well, when the ship is sinking, what happens?

    All the rats start to leave. Weaver is only the first. Soon we will be hearing from many other climate scientists who will all shake their heads in disbelief at how politicized the IPCC has become. They will swear up and down that they had misgivings for a long time, but just couldn’t say anything because… well, you know the IPCC was just so big and daunting, you know?

    But really, I’m a good scientist! I am! I was just… a victim of circumstance. Yeah, that’s it! A victim of circumstance.

    Can I go home now?

  27. And if Weaver departing isn’t enough, Gore is headed for the pews. He intends to spearhead a drive to infiltrate established religion with his own brand of environmentalism.
    The AGW science is settled, alright, it’s settled into its catacombs.

  28. OT again, this indicates the power of the web.

    Net-based pressure forces UK government to cancel plans to make MPs’ expenses secret
    Posted by Cory Doctorow, January 21, 2009 6:57 AM | permalink
    Glyn sez,

    The vote on concealing British MPs’ expenses has been cancelled by the government! [This was a proposed law that would have made MPs' expenses a secret, not available through Freedom of Information requests] Over 7000 people joined a Facebook group, they sent thousands of emails to over 90% of all MPs. Hundreds of thousands of people found out about the story by emails, blogs, by visiting TheyWorkForYou to find something they wanted to know, reading an email alert, or simply discovered what was going on whilst checking their Facebook or Twitter pages. Almost all of this happened, from nowhere, within 48 hours, putting enough pressure on Parliament to force change. mySociety also ask if you want even more transparency in parliament that you join the Free Our Bills campaign.”

  29. I think that, after WUWT published CRU hacked emails and it became the now widely known “Climate Gate”, their bosses, as in a gangster’s movie, considered all them as “burned” useless guys, so now, for sure they won’t receive any “funding” anymore….they should be feeling extremely desperate by now.
    No surprising if it happends a kind of “King Tut’s malediction” and some of them start suffering mysterious heart attacks..

  30. Throwing each other under every bus in sight.

    As I’ve said before “… the cat will mew, and dog will have his day.”

  31. Pearland Aggie (09:36:13) :

    It would be interesting to see what the readers here think…

    I think you’re trying to hijack the current discussion.

  32. “That Mr. Weaver now thinks it necessary to set himself up as the voice of scientific reason, and as a moderate guardian of appropriate and measured commentary on the state of the world’s climate, is firm evidence that the IPCC is in deep trouble.” – National Post – January 27, 2010

    I took a look at some of Dr. Weaver’s research several months ago. I became convinced that he is quite serious about learning to understand the complexities of climate.


    “[...] fossil-fuel industry might be responsible for both Climategate and his office break-in.” – National Post – January 27, 2010

    Were I a fossil-fuel exec, I might be inclined to fund ALL sides of the issue, as the whole appearance of an issue seems to have the effect of inflating prices.


    Phil (09:17:06) “The environmentalist spin on this one is going to be something to savour since they’ve been using the “it’s not as bad as it looks…let’s all take a deep breath and ignore it” line for a little too long now.”

    Don’t confuse environmentalism with climate alarmism.

  33. EdB (10:04:11) “B.C. seems to have gone to pot [...] Eco nut jobs seem to have a cozy home in B.C. It is truly strange.”

    It’s Hollywood North. You’re falling for the optics.

  34. Pearland Aggie: I had a look at that web site, but I have not delved into the references therein. However one thing immediately struck me about the “high quality” temperature data plot at the end.

    There is a plot of temperature anomaly comparing the high quality data and the previous hit-and-miss data. The two curves are almost indistinguishable for 2004-2008.

    Question: how was the BASELINE for the high quality data anomalies arrived at? After all it only started in 2004.

  35. CodeTech (09:24:39) :

    (Now they can just say “oh, those CRU/GISS/IPCC people were falsifying data, but we didn’t know before.”)

    Since the base data was corrupt before many, if not most, of the scientists even got the data it is highly likely that the majority of scientists could say exactly what you have indicated and be telling the absolute truth.

    The error was seeded into the data before they even started their analysis. Of course there are some that knew, but I think that the bulk of the papers done by those outside of the ‘inner circle’ before 2003 are likely to be depressed that their life’s work has been based on lies.

    Their work and models would match the historical data from the past and recent past but none of their predictions would ever be realized.

    It is really sad how these criminals have affected the lives of so many with their malicious and contemptuous acts of greed.

    I don’t know how withdrawn papers are recoded, but is should include a specific cause for the withdrawal and I think even a specific reference to the paper or data or person that was so corrupt as to invalidate the withdrawn paper.

    If my work had been destroyed in this way, I would be livid.

  36. Wow – look at the hit rate on Google right now!

    This is taking off! (and pretty impressive response time too!)

    “Results 1 – 50 of about 98,100,000 for climategate. (0.65 seconds)”

  37. We won’t arrive at parity until Gore et al are facing worldwide litigation for their part in this deception. Possibly never.

  38. From the linked story and its accounts of Mr Weaver’s own exploits, this isn’t an honest objective scientist who realises with a start that his colleagues are not all that can be desired, he is one of the leading examples of how a scientist can so depart from the impartial, objective un-emotive scientific reporting that he has lost any respect any decent scientist could possibly have for him. He lacks integrity and has abused the position of respect that a scientist should enjoy.
    When politicians cannot rely on scientists to be objective, to be accurate and honest, to be neutral in their language, they cannot make rational policy decisions.
    He may be trying to leave the sinking ship but he is eminently recognisable for who and what he is, one of the rats.
    Politicians will be lad of his sort as he and ghis ilk will provide the excuse for the politicians acting as they did.
    It won’t be greed they’ll admit to but to having been duped because they “trusted the science”.
    Scientists like him have no excuse.
    He may desert the ship, but he might not make it to shore.

  39. Google hit rate sure is reliable! After 5 minutes, I see this:

    Results 1 – 50 of about 11,600,000 for climategate. (0.16 seconds)

    Oh well…

  40. kzb (10:25:22) :

    I have made my own conclusions. I was just trying to see what others thought…apparently, some think that curiosity is a ‘hijack’ attempt. LMAO

    Thanks for the input :)

  41. WOW: http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/01/27/1725236/Obama-Choosing-NOT-to-go-to-the-Moon?art_pos=2
    “”Obama’s budget proposal will contain no funding for the Constellation program, which was to send astronauts to the moon by 2020. Instead, NASA will be focused on terrestrial science, such as monitoring global warming. One anonymous official said: ‘We certainly don’t need to go back to the moon.'”

    When the White House releases his budget proposal Monday, there will be no money for the Constellation program that was supposed to return humans to the moon by 2020. The troubled and expensive Ares I rocket that was to replace the space shuttle to ferry humans to space will be gone, along with money for its bigger brother, the Ares V cargo rocket that was to launch the fuel and supplies needed to take humans back to the moon.

    There will be no lunar landers, no moon bases, no Constellation program at all.”

    Just amazing… :'( But sadly this is what i expected when Obama was elected. This current administration is insane so say the least.. I just dont have words for this :(

  42. steveta_uk (10:40:59) ;

    Results 1 – 10 of about 1,420,000 for climategate. (0.29 seconds)

    Still only 1.4 Million from inside in Canada and the United States

    Results 1 – 10 of about 11,600,000 for climategate. (0.20 seconds)

    11 million from inside South Africa

    Perhaps they are opening the gates only where the word is already out.
    it is curious.

  43. EdB (09:22:06) : I used to be a AGW believer, up until I had the time and motivation to check out the science. One book I bought was Weavers book. It took about 4 to 6 months of reading of other books and blogs before I came to the view that Weaver was misleading me in his book

    Which “other books and blogs” did you read that convinced you to no longer believe in AGW?

  44. Robert (09:54:06) :

    That’s a pretty stunning admission from Dr. Weaver who’s been an insider for so long. He’s frequently quoted up here in the great white north as a climate change expert and Nobel prize winner. I must say however, he frequently crosses the line between activist and scientist.

    He knows then of what he speaks.

    Conscience? Or self-preservation?

    I think that CodeTech (09:24:39) has it right, “Hmmm – maybe a lot of people have been quietly waiting for an exit to appear so they can use it.”

    Mike Ramsey

  45. It will be painfull to de-program Norwegian teachers, school-children, journalists and politicians.

    Norway, forever known as the nation who gave the Nobel Prize to Mr. Gore and the IPCC. By Mr. Jagland.

    Did you know that all coastal towns are forced to come up with a disaster plan for rising sea-level ? As if it will rise over night…… if ever.

  46. @Edbhoy

    You are far too generous. Mr. Weaver is indeed a rat leaving a sinking ship. One has to wonder why he has only now decided to speak out about problems with the IPCC and it’s leadership when the cracks in the hull are obvious to all of us. Surely, as an insider, he would have known of these problems long before now.

    He is attempting to distance himself from a bad situation, just like any other rat. There is no more and no less to it.

  47. mdjackson:

    “But really, I’m a good scientist! I am! I was just… a victim of circumstance. Yeah, that’s it! A victim of circumstance.
    Can I go home now?”

    I’d change that last question to “Can I have the rest of my grant money now?”

  48. @kwik
    Rising sea levels would be no issue here in Norway anyways. The sea level is actually dropping since the land is rising after the glacial period ended.

    I agree though.. people here are brainwashed like hell :( Luckily the average person seems to wake up a bit for each day. The climategate scandal has really helped to wake people up as well, even though it was hardly even covered in Norway.

  49. Herman L (11:04:01) :

    EdB (09:22:06) said : “I used to be a AGW believer, up until I had the time and motivation to check out the science…”

    Herman L: Which “other books and blogs” did you read that convinced you to no longer believe in AGW?

    Comments like EdB’s are routine. Lots of readers have given their accounts of believing in AGW – until they began to study the claims that support it – and then realizing the AGW believers couldn’t make a rational case; their science is based on emotion and conjecture, on always wrong climate models, and on papers that cite similar papers – which in turn cite the original authors, all peer reviewed by pals – and all in a circular grant-seeking round robin. None of it is empirical, real world, measurable evidence.

    But try to find a similar group that began as scientific skeptics questioning the AGW hypothesis, who later decided they were wrong and became AGW believers. I can’t recall reading even one comment like that.

    Face it, those pushing AGW are trying to sell a pig in a poke. And the public is finally starting to realize it.

  50. No money for Space programs, which actually return results we didn’t expect, but plenty of budget for polyscience that returns the expected results.

  51. Fifty states and nine provinces rejected carbon taxes but Weaver got to Premier Campbell in British Columbia. BC is the one administration out of 60 to impose this ridiculous tax, so maybe Weaver can give us all rebates out of his grant money? He can certainly go back to the premier and admit that he lied.

  52. Despite the lack of sea-level rise, the low solar activity poses a need to take a more serious look at the increased tectonic activity that is indicated by the last 150 years of record.
    Big earthquakes at sea can send sudden waves into your favorite port.
    Stop wasting $$$ on wild AGW theories, and start spending $$$ on earthquake science.

  53. Through my interactions with Canadian science organizations I have had first hand dealings with Mr. Weaver. My impression is that he knows full well what is going on with the IPCC and has fully endorsed their mission and activities. It is interesting that he is now trying to distance himself from them as quick as possible. As you say, the first rat to leave the ship. I have a long list of his fellow rats. There will be more leaving.

  54. @ Pearland Aggie (09:36:13) :

    FTA: “Analysis of the data disagrees with Watts’ conclusion
    While Watts’ publication by the Heartland Institute is a valuable source of information on siting problems of the U.S. network of weather stations, the publication did not undergo peer-review–the process whereby three anonymous scientists who are experts in the field review a manuscript submitted for publication, and offer criticisms on the scientific validity of the results, resulting in revisions to the original paper or outright rejection. The Heartland Institute is an advocacy organization that accepts money from corporate benefactors such as the tobacco industry and fossil fuel industry, and publishes non-peer reviewed science that inevitably supports the interests of the groups paying for the studies…”

    I’ve got to say, I expected better than ad hominem to be at the top of any rebuttal to Watt’s arguments. In fact, I’ve taken the very nasty habit of ignoring any argument that starts with this kind of fallacy. The rest of it just usually isn’t worth reading.

  55. My guess would be that there are a lot more files just waiting to be released. Whoever the CRU ‘hacker’ was, there is no reason to think he doesn’t have more.

    And all the more reason to suspect that the ‘hacker’ is trying to expose the fraud of AGW while limiting the damage to Science as a fact seeking enterprise.

    The secret society of the AGW believers are no more than philosophers declaring how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. And some are being given the chance to quietly slip away a la Andrew Weaver.

  56. @ Pearland Aggie (09:36:13) :

    “fossil fuel industry, and publishes non-peer reviewed science that inevitably supports the interests of the groups paying for the studies”

    This is Exactly what the CRU has been doing all along, exactly.

    At the bottom of this page

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

    From the Climate Research Units own web site you will find a partial list of companies that fund the CRU.
    It includes:

    British Petroleum, ‘Oil, LNG’
    The United States Department of Energy, ‘Nuclear’
    UK Nirex Ltd. ‘Nuclear’
    Sultanate of Oman, ‘LNG’
    Shell Oil, ‘Oil, LNG’
    Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, ‘Nuclear’
    KFA Germany, ‘Nuclear’

    Think about it.

  57. Also OT:

    A popular meme/myth among the warmists is the funding of skeptical science by “big oil” and other greedy corporate interests has managed to keep the public ignorant and unconcerned.

    Are there any reliable estimates of funding for skeptical science v funding for AGW research?

  58. JonesII (09:45:01) :

    Hey Mr. Weaver, too late now buddy!, no way, gotto go to the arena and face the lions!

    LOL

    Mr. Weaver is also the god father of British Columbia carbon Tax, 1st in North America, it was suppose to be revenue neutral, but somehow it has morphed into a HST tax credit for low income Canadians. Another socialist fool.

  59. What begins as a slow, reluctant shuffle to the exit (you don’t love me no more), soon turns to a stampede of nervous feet (all hands…abandon ship).

  60. Paul Vaughan (10:16:39) :

    Don’t confuse environmentalism with climate alarmism.

    There’s is no confusion.

    The environmentalists have been pumping us with scare stories for over 40 years now. Almost every single one has been either wildly exaggerated or just simply wrong:

    The Club of Rome’s Limits to Growth
    Paul Ehrlich’s joke predictions
    John Holdren’s joke predictions
    Stephen Schneider’s joke predictions
    Aminotriazole on cranberries
    DDT
    Saccharin
    Alar on apples
    Asbestos; one fibre can kill
    Nitrates in drinking water
    etc.

    The list could go on for ages. This is environmentalism; not to be confused with what is good for the environment, which they don’t begin to understand. One after another of alarmist stories which bankrupt honest working citizens by the use of media scare tactics.

    A friend of mine is a former farmer. He says that the greenies have no understanding of the cycle of life and death. He’s right, of course. So if they are wrong from the start, they will be wrong continually.

    Try reading: But Is It True? A Citizen’s Guide to Environmental Health and Safety Issues; Prof. Aaron Wildavsky (UC Berkeley), Harvard UP, ISBN 0-674-08923-5, 1995. (A compendium of scares and fake science used by the protection racketeers.)

    This crowd of gangsters have cost us trillions, if not our whole civilisation. I for one would like to see them all sink into oblivion. Perhaps then we will be able to afford to look after the environment.

  61. Jeremy (12:02:06) :

    My thoughts exactly. If one’s argument is so sound, why would one have to couch it with ad hom attacks and innuendo? Thanks for the input…

  62. EdB
    I too was a ‘passive AGW believer’ until they tried to eliminate the MWP. This blatant attempt to change history (despite the significant historical record proving warmth) made me start revisiting both sides of the argument. It was when I started to realise that there was a manipulation of the raw data, especially prior to 1940, convinced me that the AGW side was not based on science but had other ‘social agenda’.
    Mann’s attempt (and Briffa’s) to ‘hide the decline’ by adding the thermometer temps to the tree-ring data from 1960 convinces me that the whole AGW argument is flawed and we need someone to investigate the whole charade.

  63. Pearland Aggie (09:36:13)
    :
    It would be interesting to see what the readers here think…

    I’ve looked at the Menne paper and some of the press it has received, though I’ve only been able to give it a skim read. On first glance no obvious problems jumped out, but I’m not enough of a stats guy to be able to spot any manipulations that aren’t fairly blatant.
    I guess the only impression that really stuck, was that the existence of a systemic bias between the MMTS and LIG instruments, which was large enough to overwhelm the obvious siting bias and seemingly largely unquantified, was greeted so cheerfully. Also the fact that the graphs seem to suggest that, no matter where we put the thermometers or what type of instruments and procedures we utilize after we apply our wonderful statistical methods it all comes out pretty much the same, has the little man in the back of my head, who experience has shown I ignore at my peril, screaming “this looks an awful lot like a “pencil whipping””.

  64. @Ruth (09:22:14) :
    “……
    It’s less than 2 months since Gordon Brown called climate sceptics ‘flat-earthers’ !”
    Gordon “Jonah” Brown is well known for his curse on anything he praises. Once he’d called climate sceptics “flat earthers” he’d doomed everything to do with AGW!
    Go to http://order-order.com/ and search for ‘Curse of Jonah’ for over three HUNDRED instances of Gordon’s fatal flattery!

  65. Allan M (12:34:21) :

    Paul Vaughan (10:16:39) : Don’t confuse environmentalism with climate alarmism.

    There’s is no confusion. The environmentalists have been pumping us with scare stories for over 40 years now.

    Allan, there are many here who would call themselves environmentalists. Two key authors included, Larry Solomon and Peter Taylor. Would it be better perhaps to distinguish between environmentalists who check the science for themselves, and those who do not? Sorry that’s a mouthful but it’s the shortest way to put the gist of the matter. Just as there are scientists who check, and those who don’t. I would agree that most enviros don’t check, most are bad scientists – but we can all do our bit to improve the level of checking. Starts with you and me, sir.

  66. Aviator (11:43:44) “Fifty states and nine provinces rejected carbon taxes but Weaver got to Premier Campbell in British Columbia. BC is the one administration out of 60 to impose this ridiculous tax [...]“

    The irony is that right-wingers drive BC’s carbon tax. (Left-wingers oppose.)

    The right-wing elite here are a sophisticated breed of underhanded-coy, well-versed in the art of fine optics. And if you cut through the veneer, you will find substance even greater than the facade. These folks are expert at keeping a very strong hard-core left-wing vigilantly in check.

    Entrenched in a relentlessly enduring war, right-wingers “down on the coast” in BC maintain power through persistent unyielding vigilance – it’s not the easy ride our neighbors have in Alberta, where there’s not a worthy opponent with whom to joust in life-&-death exercises, that actually raise the bars of awareness, subtlety, & nuance through the very real competitive threat of sudden-death.

    The usual right-wing tactic of relentlessly ruthless hyperpartisan gamesmanship is a liability on the coast. Loud barking? – A complete waste of energy in this theatre. Those looking to make a difference here will have to do something a whole lot more sophisticated; otherwise the local elite are just laughing at you behind your back (even if they appear to be working with you for purely practical reasons).

  67. Re Fred from Canuckistan . . . (09:53:15) :

    “I think we should just cut to the chase here and call it Climastrology.

    “When the moon is in the 7th house and CRU aligns with NASA GISS . . . ”

    Mayb we could make it into a broadway musical.”

    Fred – or just think what Tom Lehrer could have done with this!

  68. Allan M, on re-reading I don’t think I did your material justice. You are also right to point out the scale of activist/fundamentalist brainwashing, scaremongering, hellfire-preaching coming from “green” quarters.

  69. Re: Allan M (12:34:21)

    I am an environmentalist but I MOST CERTAINLY AM NOT a climate alarmist. You are welcome to train your guns squarely on me – water off a duck’s back.

  70. The AGW hypothesis will not be dead until it is finally buried by the UN and every government publicly admits that the AGW hypothesis is dead before a mainstream media that is willing to report it.

    Politicians have been funding this scam to use against us, and only politicians can finally be forced to kill it.

    The hypothesis has survived being comprehensively dis-proven by reality, and this is only through the largesse of the political class and the mainstream media pushing the lie over and over again for their own benefit. It no longer stands as a scientific hypothesis, but it has been rendered undead by the mainstream media and politics.

    Keep up the good fight, we are wounding this beast, but it is NOT dead yet!

  71. Lucy Skywalker (12:52:57) :

    Allan M, on re-reading I don’t think I did your material justice. You are also right to point out the scale of activist/fundamentalist brainwashing, scaremongering, hellfire-preaching coming from “green” quarters.

    Thanks! It’s the ‘activists’ (what the hell is that supposed to mean? are the rest of us just vegetables? (brainwashed masses)) and the campaign groups that screw it up. Their followers don’t stop to think.

  72. jones,

    i would just get snipped if i commented about progressives at the U.nited N.incompoops or the I.nternational P.anel on C.limate C.onspiracy so i will just reiterate…MCKYNTIRE FOR NOBEL NOW!!!…

  73. I know a lot of people who are heavily invested in AGW, including scientists, and I don’t think one of them is consciously trying to trick anyone. They all want to save the world, or keep their jobs, or get to play with more powerful computers, or some combination of fairly blameless motivations. It’s like a greek tragedy. A little sloppiness here, some arrogance there, an adjustment here, an exaggeration there… pretty soon you’ve got a fabrication on your hands.

    FYI, I’m a member of the Sierra Club and the National Wildlife Association, but I can’t read their publications because I find them irritating.

  74. @steveta_uk (10:40:59) :
    Wow – look at the hit rate on Google right now!

    This is taking off! (and pretty impressive response time too!)

    “Results 1 – 50 of about 98,100,000 for climategate. (0.65 seconds)”
    ================================

    Not on my toolbar it isn’t, sadly (and I’m UK too).

    “Results 1 – 20 of about 11,600,000 for climategate. (0.11 seconds)”

    Maybe it’s that pesky Google Diurnal Oscillation.

  75. “How Weaver is allowed to teach at the University of Victoria is beyond me. He brings discredit to what is called a “higher education.”

    Please understand that University of Victoria ranks 244 in the world according to a dubious web site called the Consensus Group. That is a position before Vienna University of Technology and after La Trobe University. Here in the wilds of the Peoples Republic of BC we disdain individualism or original thought. Thus Prof. Weaver is elevated by virtue of his militant adherence to the AGW agenda. Clearly his latest bleating is that of a collaborator caught now by the liberating army, trying desperately to avoid the gallows.

    Fred from Canuckistan . . . (09:53:15) :
    “Mayb we could make it into a broadway musical.”

    David Bowie is rumored at work on a music video… “Climate Cha, Cha, Changes,” it is supposed to have a cast including, Carol Burnett, Mick Jagger, Taylor Swift, Justin Timberlake, and Lou Gosset Jr., with cameos by Bill Clinton, Lew Alcindor, David Suzuki, and Rush Limbaugh. Hollywood – screwy as larks.

  76. I listened to Weaver on the Bill Good radio talk show (CKNW AM980) on or around Dec 9th/09. At that time he was sounding fairly steady in his support for AGW and the IPCC, and if I am recalling his commentary correctly, painting an unflattering picture with a broad brush in regards to the skeptics while blowing off the climategate issue (“Follow the Money”).

    Bill was just eating up his song & dance imho which saddened me greatly – I’ve always respected Bill for his balance on issues but it is lacking in this case. I find it very difficult listening ti his radio show now.

    The odd thing I felt is that there was an opportunity to mention that a Canadian statistician was directly involved in having NASA revise its’ temperature record and I can’t recall that this was mentioned. Odd because us Canadians like to toot our own horn at times at the expense of our neighbors to the south. Almost like he was following the “thou shalt not mention the unworthy lest you give them credit” routine. Seen this before haven’t we?

    It was almost enlightening to see this story on page B1 of the local Vancouver Sun newspaper this morning. I was shocked…. what! not buried 6 pages deep… front page of a section! I wonder how the local Global TV affiliate will pick up the story. They’ve given very little time to the Climategate story and continue to run with the mainstream AGW propaganda – no balance at all.

    I’ve never denied that there is global warming but as others have stated, my alarm bells went off with the revision of the MWP and then the issue of the poor siting of, as it turns out, most of the US weather stations. I simply want good sound science to help direct our politicians make decisions that will stand the test of time.

    CL

  77. Who was the warmist who broke down in tears demanding action from the US at the climate summit prior to Copenhagen? A Scandinavian diplomat or scientist, I believe.

  78. Several of the AWG site I frequent (slumming) seem to have gone quiet. I can’t help but wonder if that is in responce to the train wreck at the IPCC.

  79. Paul Vaughan (13:17:40) :

    Re: Allan M (12:34:21)

    “I am an environmentalist but I MOST CERTAINLY AM NOT a climate alarmist. You are welcome to train your guns squarely on me – water off a duck’s back.”

    Paul. Lucy got it & I think I do too

    Allan M is more after the types of advocate environmentalists like Fenton Communication I think it is who manufactured the Alar scare amongst others.

    DaveE.

  80. John (09:20:56) :

    Wow.

    Make that, “Wow, eh?” !

    O Canada, etc. etc.
    The True North strong and free, etc. etc.
    Home of Climate San-i-ty!

  81. This Trojan Horse named Mann-Made-Global-Whatever-It-Is-This-Week is, so many thinkers believe, just that – a Trojan Horse. This animal carries within it the global currency of the non too distant future: Carbon. Or, more exactly, personal carbon-credits, issued to all on a monthly basis. Given that trading in carbon credits is already ongoing, there may be an iota of truth in this.

    So, if our quest to disprove Mann-Made-etc… comes to full fruition, what will be next ? Water Vapour ? Because as sure as eggs are eggs, something will take its place.

    Toolan

  82. Weaver: Hear Ye Hear Ye: If you want forgiveness for your role in promoting the AGW fraud, repentance and redemption begins with a long letter advising Premier Campbell that carbon taxes are not justified in the face of the lack of scientific support for CO2 driving catastrophic climate change. I look deep into my crystal ball and see that BC’s politicians will give up the carbon tax plum the same day David Suzuki renounces AGW on CBC television then praises Dr. Tim Ball for his courageous skepticism.

  83. Fred from Canuckistan . . . (09:53:15) :

    I think we should just cut to the chase here and call it Climastrology.

    Or Organized Clime.

  84. @Lucy Skywalker (12:48:02) :

    “Allan, there are many here who would call themselves environmentalists. Two key authors included, Larry Solomon and Peter Taylor.”

    Here’s the problem, if you allow your movement to poison itself with what is bad, you should expect rational people to eventually fall away from your movement. A fantastic case-n-point is the feminist movement. They started with a perfectly rational and admiral goal, equal rights. Now that near parity has been achieved it has become twisted into a club for misandrists who seek out male behavior patterns that feel threatening and take stands against them, or influence courts against worthwhile fathers. It has gone so far that I know women who refuse to associate themselves with the feminist movement even though they (quite rationally) wholeheartedly agree with their original core goals. The same thing is happening with the Environmental movement. The amount of garbage that was accepted in to keep the movement going in order to “save the planet” from a perceived catastrophe has completely poisoned the well. I would be more surprised to see the sun rise tomorrow than see proclaimed environmentalists fall away from the movement in the next decade as the endgame for convincing the world to protect the planet has been reached and the lies used to perpetrate a global fraud of guilt and wealth redistribution are unraveled.

    Put simply. At this point, declaring yourself anti-environmentalist is about as impossible as declaring yourself pro-murder… since the title has no antithesis, it has no meaning and everyone is essentially an environmentalist wishing to take care of the planet whenever possible. Given that this is the case (you are free to disagree with me, but I believe it to be so), declaring yourself an environmentalist is essentially associating yourself with the whackos who are trying to convince people to live in 17th century conditions by saddling them with tremendous amounts of undeserved guilt over their lifestyle.

    I think you see my point here, so I’ll stop.

  85. Paul Vaughan (13:17:40) :

    Re: Allan M (12:34:21)

    I am an environmentalist but I MOST CERTAINLY AM NOT a climate alarmist. You are welcome to train your guns squarely on me – water off a duck’s back.

    Something of a mixed metaphor, unless I’m using a water pistol.

    Being an environmentalist these days is a bit like being in favour of good and against evil.

    What I am ranting about is the constant diet of ALARMIST scare stories put out by the organizations for decades now. By the time the work has been done, and the science is in, and the scare has been shown to be fatuous, and the media have forgotten, the myths remain to fuel the misanthropic machine. Try looking up the book I suggested.

    What also irks me is the hideous sight of the wealthy elites of Hollywood and London et al. ‘playing’ at poverty, when there is so much of the real stuff around causing untold suffering the world over.

    When I was younger, and more to the political left (the British Labour movement grew out of the nonconformist churches, along with anti-slavery, and not from any Marxist theory), the impetus was for a fairer deal for working people. There isn’t much of that left now. The watermelon has been fertilised with envy, and watered with ideology.

    I think, in the end, all …isms are bound to be wrong. For the same reason that Edward Lorenz eschewed prediction (Henri Poincaré found it 80 years earlier, working on the three body problem), we cannot know, or know of, an initial state from which we can reason these things out; and also, the idea of humans examining themselves or their affairs ‘objectively’ is just strange. Capitalism just seems to be a theorist’s word for what people have always done; and it can feed us. We need to work for a better world, not start a revolution; the poor always lose from that.

    There are hidden contradictions in the minds of people who “love Nature” while deploring the “artificialities” with which “Man has spoiled ‘Nature.’” The obvious contradiction lies in their choice of words, which imply that Man and his artifacts are not part of “Nature” — but beavers and their dams are.
    But the contradictions go deeper than this prima facie absurdity. In declaring his love for a beaver dam (erected by beavers for beavers’ purposes) and his hatred for dams erected by men (for the purposes of men) the “Naturist” reveals his hatred for his own race — i. e., his own self-hatred.

    — Robert A. Heinlein

    (I read it here, but can’t remember whom to credit)

  86. Reference Pearland Aggie (09:36:13) :

    The URL reference you gave is a typical smart a**e ad hom attack so beloved of the alarmists.
    On reading the original paper by Menne one gets a very different view of the work done by Anthony Watts et al.
    In short it is acknowledged that there was indeed a need to investigate the validity of the data in view of the poor siting of some stations.
    It turns out from Menne’s work that serendipitously the poor siting was almost exactly offset by a deficient thermometer (MMTS) and so the original records stand.
    I wonder if Anthony is prepared to accept this very convenient coincidence?

  87. Jean Parisot (14:03:56) :

    O/T
    The Grand Master of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes, and of Malta at the time of the siege of 1565 was Jean Parisot de la Valette. Any connection? He was quite a guy.

  88. Yes the rot has set in too far and too long in the IPCC as a whole. It must be shut down. Just a like house full of termites that have eaten out most of the house, the IPCC is beyond repair. Besides, all the past reports are full of fiction so how can a “reformed” IPCC carry on with the same name? It simply can’t. As for the chairman of the IPCC, well time will tell but there should be a complete investigation to reveal the truth about the alleged corruption and financial frauds he has supposed to have committed.

  89. KruddWatch (15:10:46) :

    Thanks for the input. The guy is really good on tropical weather…I just wish he would stay with that topic. Regardless, his position is getting harder and harder to defend. It’s funny how the pro-AGW folks default to NASA/NOAA/NCDC for their ‘data.’ It would be interesting to see a NOAAgate occur here in the states…

  90. kwik (11:21:04) :

    It will be painfull to de-program Norwegian teachers, school-children, journalists and politicians.

    Norway, forever known as the nation who gave the Nobel Prize to Mr. Gore and the IPCC. By Mr. Jagland.

    Did you know that all coastal towns are forced to come up with a disaster plan for rising sea-level ? As if it will rise over night…… if ever.

    Add the point that much of Norway is currently rising from the sea after the last ice age, and that picture is even more complete.

  91. Murari Lal jumping off the bandwagon now too?

    See the last couple of paragraphs in link below. Most of the article though is claiming that he never said they knew the Himalayan glaciers were going to melt by 2035 but included it anyway in AR4 (any coincidence that if you don’t take your finger off the shift key fast enough you end up with AR$ instead of AR4? ;-) ) .

    Also I love how he pulls out the prediction vs projection argument.

    http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/55682/title/Science_%2B_the_Public__Indian_climatologist_disputes_charges_over_Himalayan_projection

  92. So Andrew, about those break-ins around U Vic last year….you know, the ones you implied that targeted only your office when climategate broke and somehow BIG OIL had a hand in it when it was campus-wide and months earlier…

    Want to issue a clarification about those break-ins too?

  93. I have a great idea, stop giving the UN any more money, ever, they can go home or work for free. This will stimulate the economy, at least bubbly sales to the group formerly known as skeptics!
    On a separate note I emailed one Andy Pitman in Aus, I wrote:-

    Dear sir,
    I must object strongly to you calling skeptics “liars” this rude outburst is desperately un-scientific, if you have facts then by all means call Lord Monkton out and have a public debate, otherwise it makes you out to be the dishonest one and just shouting down opposition for no other reason than to cover your own back.
    Also to accuse these people, who are fighting for all our freedom , of taking corporate money when your funding is mostly from the man made warming area, perhaps that is what you are defending and not the science?
    Chris Edwards

    Chris,

    Monckton and Plimer have been publically called liars and have failed to answer the
    statements or questions that these accusations are based on. Until they do it is appropriate
    that the label sticks.
    the next reply:-

    Your statement “Like most people I do not have a clue (scientifically) about CO2’s role on the climate” is, of
    course, true of most people. I have no clue on how to build a bridge, so I trust and engineer. I have no
    idea about cancer, but I would trust an oncologist.

    I have spent 20 years trying to find flaws in climate science. Monkton and Plimer have not – they
    have not published a credible paper in climate science, they are not conversant with the science
    and more than I am on engineering or cancer.
    I asked him a few questions, 3 in fact:-
    You are welcome to believe them but you are being grossly misled.

    1 The gross dishonesty by the CRU and the others indicates that CO2 is not a problem
    I am not sure what you are referring to here – there are no proven accusations. There are some
    e-mails but I would suggest we wait until the outcome of the investigation.
    2 Even if it is, the political”cures” is total fraud, closing well regilated industry in the wast and giving it to China and India, with vast sums of taxpayer monies to produce substantially more pollution making the same goods is the dumbest way to commit economic suicide
    No idea what you are talking about
    and ruin the planet, this alone makes and sound science seem dishonest.
    3 If CO2 is that bigger problem, why do we all have a catalytic converter on our vehicles?

    No idea what you are talking about.

    Andy Pitman
    My reply:-
    Andy, what I am talking about is what the politicians (so far except in Australia and Canada, and of course chins and india) are doing with your theory, it is shocking and immoral and ruinous for us in the west, A Gore is making a substantial extra fortune out of his carbon trading scheme, the director of the IPCC is so corrupt I hope they hang him, your science is being used to destroy the middle classes in the USA and europe.
    The catalytic convertor, fitted to all private vehicles since about 1985, converts CO and other pollutants with unburnt fuel (no doubt deliberately introduced) into larger amounts of CO2, assume for now I accept your expertise on climate, this is downright suicidal butstill happens, I could reduce my carbon footprint by considerable amounts and my fuel useage by unbolting my cat! deleting this from new cars would reduce the carbon footprint of manufacture as they consist of a ceramic matrix with platinum and other rare metals. Does this not seem wrong to you?
    Chris

    His last comment:-
    chris

    I really only want to comment on the reliability of the core science. Its the only area I have
    expertise. I am not an engineer. I have no idea how Gore or the Chair of the IPCC is doing
    and while you may be 100% right, I simply do not know.
    I do hope it makes him think!

  94. They can all go to buggery as far as I’m concerned. I will not accept excuses from alarmist scientists such as “I didn’t know temp data was fudged, I didn’t know Glaciers melting was pseudoscience” etc etc.

    THEY ALL SHOULD HAVE KNOWN because good people like Watts, McIntyre Nova O K Manuel Monckton and many others have been yelling from the rooftops for years. And what response did they get?
    “Deniers, contrarians, not peer reviewed, science is settled, trouble makers on the big oil payroll” and on and on.

    If ANY alarmist tries to wriggle out by citing “I didn’t know” must also admit that they are IGNORANT, INTOLERANT and not a true scientist.
    No more grants, no more cushy IPCC jobs meeting in exotic places, and if they are teaching future scientists, their positions MUST BE REVIEWED immediately upon the ignorant claim of I DIDN”T KNOW.

    In view of the gravity of this whole AGW scam, nothing less will do.

  95. Herman L (11:04:01) : (you wanted to know how I went from a believer to a skeptic, and which books I read)

    Weavers was the first book I read(I believed in AGW, and his affirmed my belief)

    Then:

    The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud by Lawrence Solomon This book puzzled me, as Soloman was skeptical of the skeptics, but he did expose me to scientists who held other opinions.

    So I bought books by the deniers and of course searched out McIntyre’s blog. Who was this guy?!!

    Fred Singers “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years” This exposed me to the idea of natural variability. It is in the ice core record.

    Then Spencer: Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor

    However, it was the reading about the hockey stick that turned the corner for me. I could not understand why Weaver and others(Gavin S, M Mann) were trying to ignore McIntyres excellent statistical work. It was not long that I had to admit to myself that GS, MM, AW, etc were spinning false tales.

    Once they lost credibility, then the rest of McIntyre’s world opened up. A Watts, JeffID, Steve M.. etc etc

    Their science was open. The AGW world was closed. The final nail was the second hockey stick, Briffa’s reconstruction. At that point I accepted that the IPCC was built upon a deliberately constucted fraud.

    Climategate exposed how it was done.

    There is a huge job still to be done. The EPA and Obama are delusional, misinformed. Millions of people have to be made aware of the big con.. I especially feel sorry for teachers who believe guys like Mann, Weaver, Suzuki, Gore, Shmidt, etc etc.. these teachers now have to learn that they have been teaching bogus science, and that they have been warping the minds of millions of kids. How can these kids separate junk science from the real thing? How can a country run when its decisions are based on junk science? The Chinese will eat our lunch.

    Weaver and Suzuki have lot of apologizing to do.

  96. I find it hard to understand why the Heartland Institute’s funding sources are relevant. Either Anthony Watts is doing good, solid work or he’s not. Those who try to disparage him by tying him to something irrelevant are just afraid to deal with the strength of his work on its merits.

  97. Good news.

    Herman L (11:04:01) :

    Which “other books and blogs” did you read that convinced you to no longer believe in AGW?

    Let me help you. I was sceptic since 2006, but not so much by scientific facts, more by the way the warmists act.
    Then I found this one http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/14/real-climate-gives-reason-to-cheer/,
    and since then it’s my daily pleasure to follow and understand more and more. Not just the science, but the political consequences, we have to live with .. or not.
    Crystalclear facts, lots of links to valuable information, lots of LOLs .. and a deep insight into a movement, I thought would never happen after the Berlin wall fell 20 years ago, and never in the so-called free world.
    Mass manipulation, intolerance, misuse of science, silencing of MSM … breathtaking for me, grown up in East Germany.
    The more I enjoy watching every day how a lot great people are contributing to bring this finally down.
    Thanks guys.

  98. This Later excerpt is pure gold for QOTW

    In the language typical of an IPCC report, one might say that the radiative forcing created by Climategate and Glaciergate strongly suggest this is very likely to bring about cataclysmic melting of the organization within the next portion of the current decadal period. The words “very likely” in IPCC risk assessment terms mean a 90% or greater probability that something will happen. As it looks now, the IPCC is burnt toast and unless it is overhauled fast there’s a 90% probability the climate-change political machine is going to come crashing down.

  99. re: jaypan (16:37:38)

    Likewise, with the twist that, living in the part of Alaska I do, I had hoped that AGW was real. You see, we have all these glaciers around here…

    This page has a very interesting graph on the bottom:

    http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

    (I don’t see why they have that light gray line in the most recent part of the graph.)

    Whoever is tending that site is an AGW believer.

  100. RE where it started to come unstuck. I never believed in Global Warming because I was aware that in the early 1970s there were scares going around about Global cooling, and I knew the 1930s and 1940s had been just as hot if not hotter. The scare headlines always seemed too silly and then Professor Bob Carter, James Cook Uni, a geologist talked about the world cycles – heating preceding CO2 and the fact that CO2 levels had been much higher in other periods.
    Also, we had learned about the carbon cycle and how CO2 was essential for all life on this planet and, again, the frantic scaremongering seemed illogical.

  101. I get So Funny With The Money That You Flaunt
    I said Where’d You Get Your Information From Huh?
    You Think That You Can Front When Revelation Comes

  102. Perhaps they can move along and form the Intergovernmental Panel on Cold Fusion and save the world by creating energy from nothing.

  103. Fred from Canuckstan (09:53:16)
    Enjoyed your opener for the Broadway Musical.
    The Musical, ‘Scare”, could be a combination of the two Broadway successes,
    ‘Hair’ and ‘The Producers.’ The actor who sang ‘Springtime for Hitler and Germany’ would make a great Al Gore!

  104. As the monolithic AGW / Climate Change religion crumbles and the rats, such as Canada’s leading climate scientist, Andrew Weaver and the UK government’s chief scientist, Sir John Beddington, prepare to cover their butts and jump ship, a schism has developed between the CO2 purists, those that believe that they have discovered the Earth’s thermostat and can fine tune it to any temperature they wish and the environmentalist Greens.

    As the predictions of doom do not seem to be panning out, the CO2 purists are calling for a negotiated truce. We need not de-industrialise, walk to work or turn vegetarian. Apocalypse can be averted, the high priests of the religion can wave a magic wand to reduce CO2, all they require is to be allowed to practice their religion in peace and continued state support for it.

    The environmentalist Greens are incensed by this treachery. They will not be satisfied by the prospect of the majority of humanity not being wiped from the face of the Earth. They want Armageddon now.

    When the insane fight amongst each other this can only be good for sanity.

  105. boxman (11:01:16) : “NASA will be focused on terrestrial science, such as monitoring global warming”

    When I heard this last night during the speech I almost spit blood at the TV.

    Un-@#$%^&*((((( believable !!!

Comments are closed.