Previously I have said this about the lack of integrity regarding the recent Climategate investigations:
The investigations thus far are much like having a trial with judge, jury, reporters, spectators, and defendant, but no plaintiff. The plaintiff is locked outside the courtroom sitting in the hall hollering and hoping the jury hears some of what he has to say. Is it any wonder the verdicts keep coming up “not guilty”?
Now from Bishop Hill we learn that it appears that the Oxburgh investigation let Dr. Phil Jones endorse what evidence (papers he’s published) to review. So let me amend what I said above:
The investigations thus far are much like having a trial with judge, jury, reporters, spectators, and defendant, but no plaintiff. The plaintiff is locked outside the courtroom sitting in the hall hollering and hoping the jury hears some of what he has to say. And, to add insult to injury, when you let the accused endorse which pieces of evidence might be a “fair sample”, is it any wonder the verdicts keep coming up “not guilty”?
This entire mess is snowballing again with UEA, CRU, and Dr. Jones right at the center again.
Details here at Bishop Hill who writes:
Well, now we know who the redactions were. The contact through with the Royal Society was through Martin Rees – we knew that already. The other redaction, the other person consulted about whether the sample of papers was reasonable, was…Phil Jones.
Now, whichever way you look at it, this is a funny question to put to the accused if one’s objective is a fair trial. I mean, what could Jones say? “You’ve picked all my bad papers”? And of course Jones must have known that the sample was not representative.
Gobsmacked I am, surprised I am not.
Sponsored IT training links:
If want to pass 640-816 exam for your career sake then try out the 70-647 dumps with 650-568 practice exam to pass your exam on time.
Good grief! It’s worse than we thought.
This seems to be beyond whitewash and moving to fraudulent behavior by the review panel.
Gaia better not hear about this. The Brits already suffered enough last winter.
Time to refresh the literature on my office door, to silence those who are using the Climategate
investigationswhitewashes to argue with me again. Wow!This is somewgat unbelievable, even from these characters
How sweet: an inquiry where the defendant gets to determine beforehand exactly what pieces of evidence may be presented at his trial.
Al Capone would have loved this arrangement!
What a fascinating concept to include in the field of jurisprudence. That would be like a murderer not allowing the introduction into evidence of the gun with which he committed the crime or the eyewitness who saw him at the crime scene pulling the trigger.
My only surprise is that the good Bishop was able to get his hands on the information at all. These “independent inquiries” were nothing more than freak shows. It’s time, and past time, for Parliament and Congress to initiate serious, thorough, transparent and scrupulous investigations.
Much more worse than we thought!!!
Ecotretas
In Mann’s victory speech, he referred to Mother Nature. Hope she doesn’t hear about this.
No wonder at one point Phil Jones was contemplating suicide. Now that his modus operandi has been firmly established for everybody to see, has that consideration passed? Heaven forbid he should ever have to withstand firm and equitable inquiry!
/sarcasm off…
This spiral flame-out with an inevitable crash at the bottom can only be their own fault. Much as I anticipated it last November, the scene is still excruciating to watch.
Sigh, I was very cynical about these investigations to begin with but I never imagined something this………….stupid. Who made the decision to ask Phil for a fair representation of his work? Who thought his response would be valid? Why did they believe simply redacting his name would prevent people from finding out?
The funny part about this situation is, noting the board was full of academics, isn’t this an objective reflection of intelligence (or lack thereof) in academia? And they’re going to try and convince me they know how to read a thermometer? Simply astounding.
If this report about the Oxburgh inquiry is true, it’s now obvious that the fix was in … and the game is up.
The irony
A man accused of lying, cheating, and dishonesty…
…is asked to give his honest opinion
what is the process in Britain to remove the title from a “Lord” ?
Never mind, Exxon Mobil gave 1 million dollars to a climate skeptics conference, don’t you know…
The ‘Climate Establishment’ in Britain closed ranks to protect their own. However, they thought it best not to do so publicly. They thought they could get away with it – quiet behind-the-scenes manipulation and subtle steering here and there. Now it is coming back to bite them.
This is exactly why they despise the AG investigation in Virginia. The school is stubborn and claims they do not have to provide evidence. They call it a witch hunt.
All memos, correspondence, writings, files, documents are requested.
Jones got to filter requests for production. How convenient.
Jones appears to be crooked.
I had to check the calendar to make sure it wasn’t April 1….
If they were trading stocks or bonds, the SEC would already have them in jail for inside trading. This is beyond shameful, it’s insulting to the intelligence of everyone outside their clique of supermen.
@manfred
I believe hanging the soon to be ex-peer by a silken rope is the preferred method.
“Gobsmacked”? ROFL
There are definitely a few ‘investigators’ who ought to be smacked up alongside the head.
Jeez. If I wasn’t such a self-deluding, self-aggrandising AGWarmist, I might think these people had something to hide.
BUT SERIOUSLY.
Come on pro-warmers, I’m sure we’d all love to hear what you have to say about this. What? Cat got your tongues?
This is a good point at which to recall the detailed and erudite thoughts on the Oxburgh Inquiry expressed by Judith Curry:
http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/04/23/an-inconvenient-provocateur/
“Internal investigation” is a misnomer. An oxymoron. A double negative. And our pejorative for a real investigation.
Manfred says:
July 19, 2010 at 1:54 pm
“what is the process in Britain to remove the title from a “Lord” ?”
Have him change his name to Monckton and, as we’ve seen here, the AGW netizens will try to take care of it ;o)
Funny, I just heard this comment from a pro-warmer who said…..”meowwwwwwwwww”
I have been critical for years about how we run things in Canada but my god this makes Ottawa look good and Washington look not so bad. That unfortunately is faint praise. I suspect this is the inevitable result of mixing politics and science. That mix is spelled whitewash.
As a Managing Director of a Public Company in Canada, I am about to recommend that anything we purchase from Britain must be canceled, if this is any indication of their intelligence then the quality must be retrospective .
George Tetley
Robert E. Phelan, July 19, 2010 at 1:44 pm, “It’s time, and past time, for Parliament and Congress to initiate serious, thorough, transparent and scrupulous investigations.”
I don’t know about Parliament, but I do know that Congress will become serious, thorough, transparent, and scrupulous some time after the General Resurrection. Therefore, expect nothing soon.
To me, this appears to demonstrate that these people at the CRU are guilty as charged. If they need to have such a biased, one sided, investigation where the “defendant” gets to present the case for the prosecution, and the prosecutors are barred from the process entirely, then they MUST be guilty.
If they have nothing to hide, then they have nothing to fear from a fully open, transparent investigation with ALL the emails and scientific papers and publications being examined properly and independently.
This STILL has not happened.
David, UK: July 19, 2010 at 2:01 pm
Come on pro-warmers, I’m sure we’d all love to hear what you have to say about this. What? Cat got your tongues?
Kitty’s perched there waiting for his share of the crow coming his way…
Beyond astounding.
Phil Jones must have presented a “robust” defence of his position, at least behind the scenes. LOL
Every UK reader must e-mail their MP and those MPs who sat on the “inquiry”, especially Graham Stringer(?) insisting that this be revisited. Suggest that a formal Parliamentary enquiry be set up to examine the “science” of AGW with depositions from both sides of the argument.
Our present coalition government is committed to disastrous energy policies.
It is time this nonsense was stopped.
Very sad to hear S. Schneider has died, my condolences to his family for the sad loss.
So it went something like this … “Why should I give you my questionable papers when you’ll only try to find something wrong with them”. Which is of course bovine poo because the inquiry didn’t try to find anything wrong.
I now leave you, gentlemen of the jury, to retire, to carefully consider your verdict of “Not Guilty”
The ‘cheek’ of these people is unbelievable. I mean – really. How utterly stupid of them. Good Lord.
So now – any responsible journalist would HAVE to investigate the cover-up in a true ClimateGATE fashion?
Anyone? Anyone? Hello?
Parliament? You guys got ‘owned’, ha ha ha! It must be so embarrassing for you!
The most amazing thing is that they apparently can’t have seen anything wrong with the way they did it. If they did then surely they’re not so clueless to think that they would get away with it are they ? Surely not, they can’t be that detached from reality can they ? The arrogance of these people beggars belief.
It reminds me of the Enron story, the smartest guys in the room. Just how dumb do they think everyone else is ? Very dumb, obviously.
The statistical edifice that they have constructed isn’t even built on foundations of sand, it’s built on nothing but hot air which has been homogenized to appear much warmer than it actually is. No wonder their balloon is shrinking. Wow.
Manfred says:
July 19, 2010 at 1:54 pm
what is the process in Britain to remove the title from a “Lord” ?
As I remember, it has something to do with the Tower of London, [snip]
While investigations need to commence, and I believe Schneider’s influence forms part of the bedrock that sent climate research over the edge, I too send my condolences to Schneider’s family. 65 is too early.
What’s all the hub bub about?! We had a fair investigation, where the accused ne’r do well was granted the reich, er, uhmm right to suppress unfavorable evidence and approve favorable evidence to clear himself. Sheeeesh! Now I see why they call you Deniers – You just can’t accept a fair hearing!
/sarc off
Come on pro-warmers, I’m sure we’d all love to hear what you have to say about this. What? Cat got your tongues?
Er… have you actually read Oxburgh? E.g.
The eleven representative publications that the Panel considered in detail are
listed in Appendix B. The papers cover a period of more than twenty years and
were selected on the advice of the Royal Society. All had been published in
international scientific journals and had been through a process of peer review.
CRU agreed that they were a fair sample of the work of the Unit.The Panel
was also free to ask for any other material that it wished and did so.
Individuals on the panel asked for and reviewed other CRU research materials.
So we already knew that ‘CRU’ endorsed the paper selection – we know now that this was done by the Director of the Unit. Well, I am shocked, just shocked, I tell you.
Bishop Hill is the new Bernstein, no mistake.
REPLY: And you are a dutiful apologist, make no mistake. You haven’t done a damn thing except whine. Bishop Hill at least does the work while you complain.
And since Dr. Jones was supposed to be “disemployed” from CRU as director pending the outcomes of the investigation(s), how do you reconcile that? I daresay you’d endorse anything coming out of there while being faux shocked. But then faux is in fashion there isn’t it? -Anthony
Being a lifelong Chicago resident, I thought nothing would shock me….after all, such brazen shenanigans are the rule of law hereabouts.
However, I must admit, this brings our cherished Chicago traditions to the global arena! Quite amazing.
President Obama tried his best in Copenhagen (both for the Chicago Olympics bid and COP 15), but even he couldn’t sully the Europeans as well as Jones did!
It’s a shame but not surprising that Phil Jones lacked the character to recognize this for the dishonesty it is and to refuse to provide that list of evidence. He seems patently incapable of doing the right thing even when it concerns specifically, a search for the truth.
He’s put his legacy in stone: “Here rests Phil Jones’ integrity”. No matter – it was apparantly little used.
This simply compounds the scandal. Damage limitation by the University may have failed. The problems with the CRU data, as exemplified by the “Harry_read_me.txt” file, appear to be fundamental and far reaching, but have not been addressed. These issues should be, as they seem to point to flagrant scientific fraud.
I can only suggest that every Brit writes to their MP to protest and the every academic writes to the Vice-Chancellor of the University of East Anglia to object to the lack of honesty in his dealing wth this scandal since the credibility of British science is diminished by this episode. You might also write to Chris Huhne (the Liberal-Democrat Minister for Energy and climate change) but frankly this would be trying to make a rational argument with a cretin.
Surely by now there must be enough evidence of cheating, lying, illegal procurement and use of public funds to warrent a criminal trial.
I think the better analogy would be:
“The investigations thus far are much like having a trial with judge, jury, reporters, spectators, and defendant, but no plaintiff. The plaintiff is locked outside the courtroom. The only accusatory evidence that is permitted to be presented is that approved by the accused”.
So, will Moonbat make any mention of this? He seemed rather critical of the reviews.
Wow, just wow! This would be totally beyond belief except that it involved the pope of the AGW movement. Can’t have the religious doctrine of the AGW questioned, now can we? If this crap continues much longer, it is likely to cause the death of real science. And that will be a disaster worst than anything “global warming” could ever cause.
The Oxburgh Inquiry: One Peer of the Realm, asked another Peer of the Realm to submit his Peer Reviewed Realm… quite a nice accommodation, don’t you think!
This gives new meaning to “Peer Reviewed!” In the last month, I have literally believed nothing I’ve heard in the writings of science, medicine, health, or climatology… nothing!
These people think that by screaming, “…the sky is falling, the sky is falling,” that they can simultanously get them rich or richer & then become famous… these are incredibly sad days for scientists & engineers (me.)
Manfred says:
July 19, 2010 at 1:54 pm
what is the process in Britain to remove the title from a “Lord” ?
Manfred, I’m afraid that other than “natural wastage”, there isn’t one. He could be convicted of a criminal offence, serve time in prison, and still retain his title (although not the right to sit in the legislative house).
[REPLY – He could be hanged. And even then he would retain his title. In fact, his rank would entitle him to a silk rope. (Or the axe.) ~ Evan]
Who is going to investigate the investigators? Jim Hansen? Mike Mann?
Somehow the phrase watching a slow motion train wreck does not adequately express how this is playing out. It is more like some cheap B movies car chases where they go Waaaaay out of their way to crash into things and set stuff on fire, and of course everything blows up in the end.
If a screen writer pitched the story of the long and painful collapse of AGW and the destruction of the reputations of a dozen once respected Universities and institutions like NASA as they seem intent on doing every stupid thing possible to destroy their credibility, the script would get tossed as unbelievable.
The fact that they think the world will not notice all their manipulations astounds me, the fact that the major news organizations think it is not news worthy leaves me shaking my head.
The fact that they keep on blundering from one keystone cops moment to the next and using the strategic planning skills of the 3 stooges, along with the sales acumen of a third rate flimflam man selling snake oil is both amusing and beyond belief.
I used to get angry, now I just shake my head in bemusement that highly intelligent people can be so blind and stupid due to their arrogance, and belief system, that they are totally unaware that they are rapidly becoming world wide laughing stocks.
I suspect that in 20-30 years Climate gate and global warming or some other related phrase will become a catch phrase embedded in our language like “Ponzi scheme”, is to fraud, or “Borked” is used to describe something that is totally screwed up due to some stupid action.
I am not sure which exact term will catch on, but eventually something will grab the public’s attention as the perfect description and term of choice to describe bumbling bureaucrats, and over reaching academics who have no clue what they are doing.
If I had to guess the two most likely will be:
“Mann” meaning that it is twisted beyond all recognition and has not validity.
As in — That business report is Manned!, or the profit and loss statement is Manned.
The other obvious candidate will be some variant of Gore or Gored, as a synonym for a maliciously manipulated sales pitch that uses extreme exaggeration and over the top scare tactics to manipulate a group into doing something that will benefit the person who they are getting “Gored” by. It also has a useful natural connection to the visual of a bull hooking someone with a horn.
Larry
It’s a perfect example of why the U.S. founding fathers prohibited a state-sanctioned religion here in America. They knew full well the tyranny that always follows a symbiotic relationship between religious leaders and government leaders.
The religion provides the moral sanction to the government, and the government provides the force of arms and the tax money to the religion – the religion of environmentalism in this modern example.
From the country that brought you “The Goons” and “Monty Python”, comes another example of comedic absurdity ….. [insert name of Climategate investigation of your choice]
Richard says:
July 19, 2010 at 2:32 pm
I now leave you, gentlemen of the jury, to retire, to carefully consider your verdict of “Not Guilty”
Superb Richard!
An excerpt from my “To Invent Armageddon” poem, with emphasis on 2 lines
The globe still recovers and glaciers still melt,
And though a chill in the air can almost be felt,
There’s nothing more normal than warming that’s global,
Despite Chicken Littles droning on about weather
And whether or not science daring to question
Their dogma is legal, and should even be mentioned,
Their hockey-stick lies tilt mad at the skies,
To invent armageddon, true science DIES…
© Dave Stephens 2010
Whitewashgate?
Where were the investigative journalists of the MSM? Why didn’t they break this story?
If a screen writer pitched the story of the long and painful collapse of AGW and the destruction of the reputations of a dozen once respected Universities and institutions like NASA
I like to think of it as “Positive Feedback”.
Now from Bishop Hill we learn that it appears that the Oxburgh investigation let Dr. Phil Jones endorse what evidence (papers he’s published) to review.
He warned them not to say the kid’s name. (Before it all blew up.) Now it’s Too Late . . .
“cheating, lying, illegal procurement and use of public funds to warrant a criminal trial”
In the UK ?
Hello, the whole bunch of MP’s (all parties) have only just finished an enquiry into their lying, cheating and stealing taxpayers money for their own misuse….and so far only 3 or 4 are being prosecuted.
Misuse of public money in this country is endemic.
Indeed, finding someone using it the way they are supposed to is itself grounds for an enquiry into their sanity !
News flash:
Stanford climatologist Stephen Schneider dies at 65 – July 19, 2010
Stephen Schneider, the outspoken Stanford climatologist who has been on the front lines of the battle to address global warming for his entire career, died earlier today. Schneider was on his way from a meeting in Stockholm to London when he died of an apparent heart attack. He was 65.
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/07/stanford_climatologist_stephen.html
A sad loss to his family and friends – so I won’t comment further.
REPLY: It is always good to visit the WUWT home page and scroll first, but thanks, – Anthony
Hmmm … so the newsworthy revelation is that CRU agreed that they were a fair sample of the work of the Unit as the report stated, is substantively different from CRU’s Director agreed that they were a fair sample of the work of the Unit? Is that the point here? What am I missing? Jones was in charge at the time most the papers were written so did anyone seriously think he wasn’t involved?
The relevance of him temporarily standing aside pending his exoneration escapes me.
REPLY: Most anything relevant that might dampen the perceived purity escapes you Phil, but you are a cheerleader and we expect this of cheerleaders.
I’ll w r i t e | s l o w l y . P e r s o n | u n d e r | i n v e s t i g a t i o n | d o e s n ‘ t | g e t | t o | t a k e | p a r t | i n | t h e | i n v e s t i g a t i o n .
-Anthony
I think that what counts most here is how much these guys sincerely believe they are doing the right thing.
BTW: That is sarcasm, Sheldon
O.T.
But the DMI Arctic temperature graph is now showing the lowest temperature for this date in the record back to 1958.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
The Denialists continue to cavil. Why, who could be more expert on Phil Jones than Phil Jones? But let justice be seen to be done. I fearlessly call for a final independent inquiry by Greenpeace, PETA, and the geniuses who found a 2 metre sea level rise on low-lying Pacific islands but not on any of the rest of the world’s oceans.
When did they make the leap to fairy tales? Is there and exact point or was it from the beginning.
Wouldn’t it be better for all people if they stopped lying?
Beyond belief, even beyond parody.
I doubt any new student would want to sign on at UEA.
If this is the example they set, I wouldn’t employ one of their graduates.
The only way to lawfully relieve a Lord of their title is through an act of Parliament. The death sentence has been totally revoked. Even for treason.
Scientwists? Scientwits?
Hooray for the circus! Everyone loves the circus – and that includes the Merry Mouseketeers!
Away for the circus! Everyone join the circus as the old calliope rings in your ears!
There’ll be lovely harem dancers and the flyers on trapeze – and there are 2 weight lifters who lift anything with ease –
Come along and sing a song
And join the jamboree
CAP = you’ll feel it real soon!
TAX – why? because you were looking in the rearview!
Keeping the world Gorm-free, since Zero BC takes a global community!
ADVERTISEMENT
Bankruptcy has never been more affordable! Government assistance is available!
The British government is complicit in global warming ‘science’. This is more evidence that global warming is politics and not science.
The Founding Fathers of America put safeguards in place to stop things like this. That system may still have its say here. I don’t know what will come to the rescue of the Brits.
Don’t th inquirers understand that all a scientist’s papers should withstand scrutiny. I’m sure Bernie Madoff could have supplied accounts that made money for his clients for the prosecutor to consider and he would be back in business. A smart way to have proceeded would have been to throw out Phil’s selections and look at the rest. “Oh and Phil, pick up a couple of wide brushes at the hardware on your way over.”
It’s was clear from watching and reading the inquiry at the time that they were playing softball with Phil Jones. Now we know he even knew what pitches were being throw and may have even called the pitches.
[snip]
Feel free to snip at will. I’m kinda grouchy after reading the above article…
Selfexoneration.
Before this episode, in various argumentations I had refrained from levelling charges of ‘comspiracy’ etc not just for fear of looking maniacal; but I genuinely beleive the AGW movement has been driven by well meaning types whose worries snowballed (or stoked, whatever hardehar) a form of mass irrationality. And very successfully, I might add.
However, what witness here is now undeniable conspiracy to pervert the course of science.
When an (albeit self declared) scientific paradigm is threatened this is common behaviour by the scientists involved (see Kuhn).
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
July 19, 2010 at 4:32 pm
“The British government is complicit in global warming ‘science’. This is more evidence that global warming is politics and not science.
The Founding Fathers of America put safeguards in place to stop things like this. That system may still have its say here. I don’t know what will come to the rescue of the Brits.”
Given the state of alarmism here in the U.S., and given we’ve had our own whitewash, I think it is a bit early to “tsk” in weary bemusement at our cousins across the pond. While I remain hopeful and optimistic we in the States can serve as a catalyst for reform in scientific, political and economic procedures, we are a long way from getting there. Hopefully, November will be a start, but the road is long and as long as the current administration is in power, regardless of the outcome of November, we won’t see any significant changes in incestuous relationships between academia, government and science. (Which is what we are witnessing in G.B. on the post.)
Just a post normal British benign inquiry. Now can the USA top that with an investigation of the historical surface temperature data/thermometer records – I can see it now, Investigated rigorously by “Real Climate” scientists , adjusted,homogenized and of course declared fit for purpose!
Josh, get out your cartoon pens ready for the galloping whitewash with Gavin and his chosen investigators!!
For the uninitiated, it’s important to know that the 11 papers were not ‘representative’. In fact, these papers uniquely avoided all of the controversial subjects. So the reason that Dr. Jones’ involvement is scandalous is because it misdirected the inquiry to papers where they would find no evidence of wrong doing.
This is like watching As the World Turns.
The twisting, turning, churning and tangled webs are woven without end.
Richard says:
July 19, 2010 at 2:32 pm
I now leave you, gentlemen of the jury, to retire, to carefully consider your verdict of “Not Guilty”
Entirely superflous information, but I think the quote comes from Peter Cook’s parody of the Jeremy Thorpe trial. Another classic British establishment cover up.
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. It seems that there’s no justice in the world. Everything is a big lie or a scam. There’s no such thing as truth anymore. I used to trust science above all else–but I can’t do it any more. They’re all just a bunch of liars out to make a buck on the taxpayers’ dime. They don’t care who they hurt or how many lives they destroy, as long as they get their money. They’re no better than the politicians they’ve crawled into bed with.
I’m shocked, yet not, all at the same time. We all know that climate scientists (Mann & Jones) have no problem removing data that doesn’t suit them. Why would they act any differently in an inquiry. So while I’m not surprised that Jones would do this, I am somewhat surprised that the inquiry would be this blatant about it.
Now it clearly is fraud. If the person investigated designs the investigation and the investigators sign off on that design but do not tell the public about these shenanigans and do tell the public that the investigation is genuine then that is fraud. Yes, it is also simple lying, collusion, and various other matters but it adds up to fraud. They should be prosecuted for fraud. The USA D0E should file charges immediately.
REPLY:Until we have a truly independent investigation, I don’t know that it is fraud. It does however have troubling integrity issues. The DOE is already suspending payment, though I doubt they have any jurisdiction beyond that. – Anthony
INGSOC says:
July 19, 2010 at 4:38 pm
[snip]
“Feel free to snip at will. I’m kinda grouchy after reading the above article…”
No need to feel grouchy, this story only affirms what most of us already knew. Well, we didn’t expect them to ask Dr. Jones for the evidence against him, but who could conceive of something that insipidly stupid? Maybe it is the cynic in me that made me chuckle but I find some humor in this. I can only assume all the people involved in the decisions made, in regards to this investigation, thought no one would find out. These allegedly “smart” people apparently had little understanding and little regard for sites such as Bishop Hill and WUWT or any other informative blog.
While many of that ilk like to drone on and on about the nature of climate studies on the web. Two recent articles here come to mind, one where we are nothing but right-wing militants, and another is concerned about revolutions and such because there is no dialogue between the scientific community and the blog-sphere. They apparently haven’t taken it upon themselves to educate themselves regarding this nuance. (It’s only been around for a couple of decades.) Personally, I like it this way, it makes it easier to point to their willful ignorance and make fun of the surprise they get when they get caught at lying, distorting, misleading and overall believe they can say what they will without having their assertions dissected and sent to the trash bin. That being said, I get grouchy also when I contemplate some of the misdeeds of the alarmists. I just grab a laugh when I can.
One last observation, though, for what ever reason, the decision makers of the inquiry had absolutely no fear of the main-stream-media and their investigative journalists. Strange, I wonder why?
Mod……If you think my reference to the latter post about dialogue was too much, like INGSOC, feel free to snip the second paragraph. My intention isn’t to harm, but rather up lift a fellow skeptic.
Ladies and Gents, The three “investigations” were indeed jokes, but I frankly don’t see getting lathered about verifying whether the selection of papers was reasonable. My disconnect is the following:
1. Why check at all if the scope is not to include the science?
2. Given that they did, why not also take a selection of papers and posts from Steve McIntyre and verify that THEY are also representative?
Where am I off base?
Ordinarily I try to avoid some of the “piling on” that’s been increasing due to the increasing readership. However, I saw Toy Story 3 yesterday and wrt to the continuing Stupidity of this review process, I can only say “To Infinity and Beyond.”
Next up, a whitewash of the whitewash. After all, fraud is the new “normal”.
James Sexton asks:
“The funny part about this situation is, noting the board was full of academics, isn’t this an objective reflection of intelligence (or lack thereof) in academia?”
Having lived a life there, I can assure you that this is a perfect reflection of behavior in academia. Behavior and intelligence rarely influence one another among these folk. When academia was good, academics understood that they were a collection of eccentrics. Once academia went on a war footing, so to speak, these little gatherings of academics became totally dysfunctional. There is a place for specialized research institutions comprised of mostly academics, but it is not the university.
Noblesse Oblige,
The fact that the names were redacted means they had something to hide, no?
Anthony,
Thanks for your comment on my post above. I do appreciate your great efforts in behalf of science. Anytime you want to delete a post from me, that is fine with me.
Noblesse Oblige says:
July 19, 2010 at 5:29 pm
“Ladies and Gents, The three “investigations” were indeed jokes, but I frankly don’t see getting lathered about verifying whether the selection of papers was reasonable. My disconnect is the following:
1. Why check at all if the scope is not to include the science?
2. Given that they did, why not also take a selection of papers and posts from Steve McIntyre and verify that THEY are also representative?
Where am I off base?”
You’re correct about the lathering, as I stated earlier, we knew they were whitewashes before they rendered their opinions…..but…..
1. Given the recent revealed antics of this inquiry, the one thing the inquiry knew was they couldn’t check the science because it was beyond them. Given their astounding lack of ability to reason, I doubt they could note the differences of weight between a C and an O even if you gave them an elemental chart. So, they confined themselves to the methods, or so they led some to believe.
2. Obviously, the purpose of the inquiry was to pronounce the CRU vindicated of all misdeeds. It wasn’t about the methods nor the science.
John A,
Exxon you say?
Exxon gave $100 Million dollars for environmental studies to the University Stephen Schneider works at.
http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2010m6d24-Global-warmings-Stephen-Schneider-The-Light-That-Failed
I hope that parliamentary committee reconvenes.
Is it just me or is the whining getting more shrill over at RC? This comment on Muir Russel responses (number 217) from Jim (presumably Bouldin):
[Response: Keenan is a first degree idiot. He was the one who forced Queens University of Belfast to release their tree ring data earlier this year, on the grounds that it was somehow critical to global temperature reconstructions. I don’t spend a lot of time reading denialist junk, but I did read his ideas about why this was supposedly the case, and I have never read anything more ridiculous and counter to reality. He believes that even though certain Irish tree ring proxies held by QUB do not correlate at all well with local temperature records, that they are somehow useful as a global temperature proxy. Worse by a fair margin than even McIntyre’s nonsense on Yamal.–Jim]
I feel like saying “tell us how you really feel…” Is this the way “real climate scientists” conduct themselves in public now? Mind-boggling that they expect us to take their comments seriously.
Will the BBC, PBS and the lot report this?
When it is all done and dusted, the greater tragedy with this great global warming swindle and the Gruesome Greasome now covering up their fat backsides from the long gorging at taxpayers expense, will be to allow every ratbag carpetbagger and snake oil merchant peddling their quack remedies to refute any scientific objection to their wares with- ‘Well you know you can’t trust the scientists and science anyway’. Where were all our mainstream ‘without fear or favour’ journalists while this was going down we may well ask now? At the very least they need to get off their backsides now and put their shame to rights.
Manfred on July 19, 2010 at 1:54 pm asked:
what is the process in Britain to remove the title from a “Lord” ?
Beheadment.
Theo Goodwin says:
July 19, 2010 at 5:34 pm
James Sexton asks:
“Behavior and intelligence rarely influence one another among these folk.”
lol, yes, but, I wasn’t referring to the behavior, I was referring to the execution of their little whitewash/cover up. From my estimation, at least in the case of this small gathering of academics called the inquiry, they not only lack moral character, but lack the ability to think beyond a step or two of the “here and now”, which does indeed reflect upon their intelligence.
It seems today is different than days gone by. I’ve come to know several people which hold a PhD in something or another. I find them mundane and intellectually average. I once thought perhaps it was a bias observed because of the common denominator,….me. However, after this and several other examples, I coming to believe, for the most part, once in academia, intelligent people pursue their life while average people pursue a title of learning. In my perspective, if I held a PhD in whatever field some of these people did, I would take it as a personal insult in regards to not only their behavior, but also their apparent lack of skills to reason. But, that’s just me.
Will Steve McIntyre still call this standard practice and say we should not do anything but ‘let governments govern’? Or will this turn his unmotivated Canadian blood red?
Where these “investigations” paid for by John Q taxpayer ?
Pamela Gray
July 19, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Thank you for informing of Stephen Schneider. I had not heard until just this minute and now looked it up on the web. I am very sorry to hear about it. If anyone who knows him is reading this my condolences go out to you. I have had differences with his politics. But that has no place at this time. I am a little shocked to learn of this. He was 65, not seeming old. Again, my condolences. May your memories of him be of love.
A bad news after a good news.
Big Oil is running low on petty cash. I suspect Big Oil will scale back to Jones a bit. I see Stephen Schneider had Big Oil connections. This white wash is very important because Big Oil doesn’t like bad science.
Just the threat of CO2 causing warming helped shakedown Big Oil donations.
James Sexton,
You must read the following treatise:
http://fravia.com/realicra/basiclawsofhumanstupidity.htm
H.R. says:
July 19, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Gaia better not hear about this. The Brits already suffered enough last winter.
…and as a punishment this summer will be shorter (Gaia).:-)
Let´s get back to Sun issues before we get mad.
evanmjones says:
July 19, 2010 at 3:51 pm
Whitewashgate?
Copyright and Wikipedia immediately.
Anthony’s handling of Dr. Schneider’s passing was sheer class imbued with integrity. I hope this sets the standard in the arena when tragedy besets individuals on the skeptic’s side as I’m sure he will act similarly regarding anyone in the AGW camp.
While perhaps it’s not quite the same thing, for some reason when I read this thread start, I was prompted to remember these infamous words by ”Uncle Joe S.”:
”It’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes.”
If the defendent gets to pass judgment on what is allowed to be introduced as ”evidence” at his/her trial, why even bother with a trial at all ??
Sheesh. . . . .
It is fraud, and Mr. Oburgh helped perpetrate it. Either his staff ill-served him and he is incompetently following them, or he was in on it. He either helped by commission or omission.
And Oxburgh and his fellow ‘commissioners’ fibbed about it. They misled by claiming that the Royal Society did the selecting.
I thought peers of the realm were supposed to be good at these things.
Smokey: “The fact that the names were redacted means they had something to hide, no?”
It does look bad. I think the point is that arrogance has ascended to the point where these characters don’t even bother to masquerade as objective.
“OK kids, this is your final exam paper for entrance to the UEA. You will notice the answers to the questions have already been written in bold type on each page. Just put your name on the cover sheet and spend the next two hours in small groups marking the papers. Hand them into me as you leave the hall. Bonus marks will be allocated to anyone who finishes early. Remember to say nothing outside the examination hall as we have standards to maintain”
GW consensus is manufactured, climate science is more or less political science. So called climate “scientist” are paid to fudge data and write AGW fiction. A coordinated joint effort is/has been made by the media, educational and government institutions to manufacture public opinion and convince the population the phony problem exists. The best part of AGW, is that it wakes up the smartest segment of the population to the communist agenda.
Schneider’s biography is one of the great narratives running through AGW alarmism, and to undertand his contribution is to understand a large part of what happened. He was in a class above Phil Jones and the Hockey Team. He was a prophet, they were the priests. He was of the prophetic school of Paul Ehrlich, and will be remembered for offering ‘scary senarios’ about both kinds of change, cool and warm. In my view his greatest contribution to this scare was his approach to the the questions of uncertainty, and of uncertainty in risk management, especially after Hansen’s 1988 “99% certainty” testimony.
templar knight says:
July 19, 2010 at 3:18 pm
“…..If this crap continues much longer, it is likely to cause the death of real science. And that will be a disaster worst than anything “global warming” could ever cause.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
James Sexton says:
July 19, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Hopefully, November will be a start
If this man from Florida wins we will hear a different song coming from Washington, at least from him, and that is encouraging to me.
🙂
James Sexton,
I will set aside the humor and be clear. The kind of intelligence possessed by the vast majority of academics does not lend itself to working well with others. Academics should be in their offices, theatres, labs, or wherever creating what they want to create. At that task, they are very good and show great intelligence. Most work alone and most create by writing essays. But assign them a common task that requires cooperation and they fall all over themselves. Say, in a department of fifteen, four professors are selected to work with four advanced graduate students for the purpose or reading applications from prospective graduate students, ranking the applications, and offering awards of fellowships to various applications. The bottom line is that each professor and advanced graduate student will have found an applicant or two that they like and fellowships will be awarded to them. That’s the end of the work and the meeting. The clean-up, which might involve awarding a few remaining fellowships, accepting some students without fellowships, and so on will be done by the chair person according to his/her own lights. In other words, there are no standards and certainly no discussion of merits.
Given that professors so often behave in this fashion, I am very sympathetic to the CRU/UEA professors because I know that they most likely were just doing their professorial best. Nothing better could be expected of them. Where I disapprove of them is in the strong claims that they made for their work. No one should have put their professional prestige behind the hockey stick. They all knew that Jones “hid the decline” and they should not have claimed that their science was better than that. But in this age of Big Funding, these little groups are on a “war footing,” or so they believe. They believe that they must assert that their work came out of the best deliberations about science, statistics, and scientific methods. Yet they all know that the best their collaboration produced was some patched together items and that Jones’ “hide the decline” is one such patch. I support the complaint of Jones that what he did is done all the time in academia. However, his error was not the patch, but failing to acknowledge the patch and then, when challenged, defending it as first-rate science. In my humble opinion, when he did that he was lying but he did not understand what else he might do. Also, in my humble opinion, this kind of behavior is endemic in academia and everyone should admit it. Once admitted, academics should acknowledge that the work that they do cannot be used by governments to make decisions involving billions of taxpayer dollars. In some decades, the science will mature. At this time, it simply cannot support the thesis of AGW.
My only surprise about this was the gall with which it was done, or possibly the ineptitude. It is one thing to do it, but to fail to hide the information…. that is either stunning stupidity or stunning self confidence.
When the story of the emails first broke, my prediction (on another site) was that things would be hushed up, but that the scientific community would then try to clean house out of sight.
I think this is a ham fisted continuation of that approach. A face saving or time buying exercise if you will. Jones gets cleared, and then quietly retired (with honour, at least in public). Others would then get to tidy up the research stuff.
The problem that they face is that they have not adjusted to the new environment that the internet has ushered in.
An example of similar outdated thinking springs to mind. A Catholic Bishop heard that someone had translated the Bible into English, and, wanting to prevent this being distributed he came up with the cunning plan of buying every single copy, and burning them in public. A few years previously the plan would have worked, as this would have meant the destruction of years worth of work. However, he did not take into account the recently introduced printing press.
The Bishop burned his money, and the printers simply did another print run.
A similar thing is happening here. They have failed to realize that they cannot control the flow of information.
Thanks in no small part to the excellent work that you do on this site.
toyotawhizguy says:
July 19, 2010 at 5:33 pm
Next up, a whitewash of the whitewash. After all, fraud is the new “normal”.
The new ‘standard practice’.
This is not the time. This is not the place. Right or wrong, such comments are in poor taste at this time, which is precisely why Anthony closed comments on the previous Prof. Schneider-related thread.
berniel says at 6:53 pm [ … ]
That was a good eulogy.
George Tetley says:
July 19, 2010 at 2:18 pm
As a Managing Director of a Public Company in Canada, I am about to recommend that anything we purchase from Britain must be canceled, if this is any indication of their intelligence then the quality must be retrospective .
George Tetley
____________________________________________________________—
George, I sure as heck hope your company does incoming inspection. As a QC engineer/lab manager who has been asked to falsify Certs of Analysis at all but one of the companies I worked for, I STRONGLY suggest at least random audits. ISO is worthless in my opinion and in the candid opinions of many other QC types if you catch them alone.
How can they stop lying? Their profession is based on spreading disinformation.
Dave L says:
July 19, 2010 at 6:24 pm
“James Sexton,
You must read the following treatise:
http://fravia.com/realicra/basiclawsofhumanstupidity.htm”
Thank you very much! It is heartening, to read people of similar thought! Many of the assertions stated in the treatise parallel many of my personal assertions, though articulated in different manners. For instance, the second law which states The probability that a certain person be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person. One can’t un-nurture intelligence. So, the converse is true, too. Regardless of circumstance, even during upbringing, a stupid person will be stupid in perpetuity, or until the timely demise of the stupid person.
What we are observing here, are the 3rd, 4th, and 5th basic laws of human stupidity.
3rd, A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses. This should be self evident and require no further discussion other than an affirmation the inquiry, to quote a certain head of state, “acted stupidly”.
4th, Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places and under any circumstances to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake. The reason the alarmist crowd got so far is because non-stupid people refused to take them seriously until laws started to get passed in an attempt to sate the stupid peoples fantasies and it has been costly. Case in point, if there were an intelligent person on the Oxburgh inquiry, they are paying what I have commonly known as the stupid tax. Similar to the first law, the cost of associating with stupid people is always underestimated, even when it is understood the association will tax the person willing to associate.
5th A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person. The danger and harm already done to society in general is the reason many of us are engaged in the AGW debate. In adherence to laws 1 and 4 we belatedly and reluctantly(probably because most are familiar with the tenants of the 4th law) engaged in the AGW discussion.
Again, thanks!
John Cooper says:
“It’s a perfect example of why the U.S. founding fathers prohibited a state-sanctioned religion here in America. They knew full well the tyranny that always follows a symbiotic relationship between religious leaders and government leaders.
“The religion provides the moral sanction to the government, and the government provides the force of arms and the tax money to the religion – the religion of environmentalism in this modern example.”
Actually, the Founders did not prohibit a state-sanctioned religion. Many of the original colonies had official religions that were deemed perfectly legal by the signers of the Constitution. When the colonies became states upon ratifying the Constitution, many kept their official religions or denominations. Much of this changed over a long period of time as each state came up with its own constitution.
The U.S. Constitution only prohibits CONGRESS from enacting laws concerning the establishment of religion; it does not prevent states, counties, cities, or towns from doing so.
dp says: He’s put his legacy in stone: “Here rests Phil Jones’ integrity”. No matter – it was apparantly little used.
Oh what the heck! I’m feeling a bit morbid tonight so here ya go!
http://tiggerstestblog.blogspot.com/2010/07/if-it-wasnt-so-maddening-id-laugh.html
All these comments are missing the point – it was a fraudulent thing to do, but IT WORKED! The enquiry came back with the verdict, and that’s what the mass media reported. That’s what the vast majority of tax payers heard. Anyone informed enough to find out how the verdict was compiled is informed enough to know how corrupt the system is, but the average person handing over the tax dollars to these people now believes all is well
So… which CRU papers were left out that should have been reviewed?
Astounding! It beggars belief – almost.
There is however a sort of precedent in England for undue influence by those already in position of academic influence.
When the Royal Society instituted an inquiry (a long time ago) into the question as to whether the calculus of Newton or Leibnitz was the first and best the finding was lo-and-behold ‘Newton’. The report was in Newton’s handwriting!
Theo Goodwin says:
July 19, 2010 at 7:11 pm
James Sexton,
“I will set aside the humor and be clear….. ”
While it is true, that I attempted to interject some poor humor, I, too, was being clear. When you stated, “…At that task, they are very good and show great intelligence.”, I’ve no doubt that once was true. I’ve known some truly brilliant men and women who carried the moniker Dr. that couldn’t do even the most mundane tasks with any aptness, but were brilliant nonetheless. Sadly, I haven’t ran into any as such in the last 20 years or so. I’m not saying they don’t exist, I’m stating they are no long indicative of the people carrying the moniker of Dr. As you point out when you stated “this kind of behavior is endemic in academia”, we know it isn’t confined to the climate sciences, though we see examples of their sophistry on an almost daily basis. When you stated, “they most likely were just doing their professorial best. Nothing better could be expected of them.”, then you’ll agree with me when I say they lacked the ability to see past their fallacy and understand the chosen course of action was not the best course of action, for themselves, for the science, or for the citizens of the world. When they failed, and they did, they didn’t fail only themselves, they fail the rest of us, too. This doesn’t show intelligence, it shows cowardice of the worst kind. It is easy to shirk from an malevolent advisory who is too strong to defeat. But they shirked from their own malevolent deeds. Once you know you are wrong, would not the intelligent path be to correct the wrong before too much is made of you being wrong? I don’t accept they are intelligent in their own areas of passion. Were that true, we wouldn’t see this debacle unfold as we are seeing today.
Theo, I’m truly sorry. The high-minded academic world you alluded to, exists only in the past. I’ve seen no evidence to state otherwise.
I know when it happened. What only seems like yesterday, this nation, and most of the other industrialized nations decided all children should receive a college education, regardless of their intelligence or aptitude. We’ve seen through the years a multitude of examples of deferential treatment to people regardless of intelligence or aptitude. We’ve even seen some colleges accept students based on their sexual preference to like gender alone as the sole qualification. While I don’t begrudge anyone their preferences, ones preferences should not be the sole qualification of acceptance to an institution of higher learning. As you stated, “there are no standards”. Believe it or not, the American Disabilities Act, covers people of less mental status and public colleges are required to adhere to the ADA.
The fact of the matter is, all that is required to attend a college or university in the U.S. today is a PELL grant application so they can get a degree on our dime. One doesn’t even have to read or write, if you can’t a person will be provided for you to do said tasks. (I can only assume similar instances are happening abroad.) As a result, universities and colleges, for the last 30 years or so have become inundated with mediocre students, with the push for everyone to have a degree, they graduated the mediocre students. Some stayed because they lacked the ability to survive in the outside world where they’d be required to do something. Thus, sadly, that populace became reflective of the sciences and academia, or they took a job in the service of the government. Sometimes, all three at once. Theo, I’ve seen you posts here, I think you’re a throw-back to a time when higher learning meant exactly that.
The peasants are revolting. Have another biscuit, Bernard?
As if further proof was required – yet more glaring evidence of the ruinous incestuous relationship between elements of UK ‘establishment’ and the ‘science’ of AGW.
I’m little surprised. This is symptomatic of a persistent malaise, wherein any seemingly impartial and objective investigation is clearly unable and unwilling to operate with due integrity, transparency or accountability.
Irrespective of whatever stance or opinion any individual might have on matters AGW, such blatant malpractice must be condemned. Farcical.
It is heartening to see the collaspe continue, by Christmas I expect it to be full force.The heart of liberal insight is this, “You people are too stupid to live your lives without my help” otherwise stated as “We are here to help you, we are from the government”. It is the group think of our university grads that they are so much smarter than the ordinary folk, thats why BA stands for so little now.This self delusion is why the inquiries have been so badly done,not even a pretence of investigation in all 3. Why bother when everyone else is too stupid to observe the fakery.Sadly this also describes the govt employee now.And the final fool , the politician, no one in their right mind would seek the job, so naturally the crazy lazy and stupid are front and centre.Thanks for the 5 laws of human stupidity, stupidly I had forgotten them.Sarcasm aside these botched enquiries have done more to keep the scandal in the public eye than one honest investigation, revealing it all as fakery would have.If the science and behaviour of the CRU staff is/was actually far worse than the emails suggest it still would have mostly blown over by now. JRR
I’ve read nothing of this in the main stream media, and expect not to.
No-one I know in real life has any knowledge of these shinanigans, or really can speak intelligently about global warming at all.
We need a door to door campaign, or at least a brochure or mailing.
elbapo says:
July 19, 2010 at 4:48 pm
“Before this episode, in various argumentations I had refrained from levelling charges of ‘comspiracy’ etc not just for fear of looking maniacal (…)”
Yes I have always had the same qualms, however —
Whichever way you look at it, there’s plain evidence here of collusion between members of what effectively has become a pressure group. Now’s not the moment to turn the heat off them.
There’s enough whitewash in this business to repaint ever Stevenson Screen ever built.
evanmjones says:
July 19, 2010 at 3:51 pm
“Whitewashgate?”
Sorry Evan. But I scooped everyone here at WUWT with that appellation. Now where’s my Pullitzer? 🙂
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/14/uh-oh-really-inconvenient-press/
Scroll to the bottom.
evanmjones says:
July 19, 2010 at 3:56 pm
If a screen writer pitched the story of the long and painful collapse of AGW and the destruction of the reputations of a dozen once respected Universities and institutions like NASA
I like to think of it as “Positive Feedback”.
You need to add: “with climate sensitivity.” That way you get the female draw … 🙂
In these closed chamber reviews, I suppose they could say they have been ‘honest’ in their rigor. They have not thrown out any token sacrificial lambs to appease the AGW resistance movement. They appear to have just cleared the lot — tabula rasa.
At this time, I do not see any real obstacle in their way except uncooperative weather. Perhaps at some future date we will be able to mark the Climategate revelations and the deep solar minimum of 2009 as the point at which AGW alarmism ‘Jumped the Shark.’
Is it just me, or are these “scientists” on a train to destroy science?
How many others are involved?
Is science a political satire?
I think Phil Jones should go to a nursing home and report the temp every day from his room
And these names, Rees and Jones, were put forward by The Royal Society – this reflects very badly on them.
Phil Clarke had a fair point, not that that skillfully disguised revelation excused the behaviour. You have to admire Oxburgh’s sheer gall and wriggliness.
And I know it’s your blog, Anthony, there’s probably much exasperating history and you can do as you choose but in my opinion your replies to Phil don’t meet the usual standard of discourse here.
Incidentally, this seems another classic UK Establishment “inquiry”:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/call-for-judge-investigating-torture-claims-to-resign-2030337.html
This has made my day. While facing tough competition from the past in the sphere of satire and pure comedy, this post had me in stitches with tears in my eyes. Unbelievable. But will it get its due attention in the media? I am not holding my breath!
We find ourselves forced to ask the question: “Why are the Establishment so keen to ensure that the people don’t discover that AGW is a fraud?”.
It seems that the Establishment had no faith in Dr Jones being able to defend himself robustly – which suggests the Establishment knows that AGW is a fraud. Despite this, they find it expedient to continue to give it robust support to ensure we don’t discover that it is a fraud. Why? What are they trying to hide?
I am coming to the conclusion that we are focussing too much on the monkey and not the organ grinder. Who is paying for this AGW research? Why is it entrusted to third-rate universities in the UK that carry out a minimum of real observations for the most important issue since the invention of the atom bomb? Why are so many governments world-wide banging the same drum?
It just doesn’t add up.
‘Manfred says:
July 19, 2010 at 1:54 pm
what is the process in Britain to remove the title from a “Lord” ?’
A bottle of whisky plus a loaded revolver.
So, the white paint didn’t stick? They need another coat of whitewash, but it won’t stick either. Then another and another……. The more coats they apply the heavier it will get and the greater will be their fall. Or is this new revelation the great and final fall?
AGW is the love child of the New World Order and the globalist agenda of total domination of humanity, that is why they’re going to so much lengths to defend it.
—-
Fair is fair! Did you know?…..
I would just love to see a juicy, out in the open, legal class action suit. Give lawyers a whiff of large compensations and let them loose.
As Shakespeare once wrote:
“Cry havoc! and let loose the dogs of war, that this foul deed shall smell above the earth with carrion men, groaning for burial.”
I get the impression that the Climategate whitewashes were just ‘acting for the cameras’ for the MSM, who, in cahoots with the scammers then just reported the outcome as a sort of victory for the warmists, which isn’t. More to come, but the final fall is evident. I believe that there will be an instant when the MSM, seeing the fall coming, will lower the warmist flag, raise the skeptic one with many journalists trying to reach the finishing line in the race to dicovered the ‘truth’. This winning journalist will be awarded the Pultizer prize or something. But the real heroes are those scientists/bloggers who have been saying it like it really is for years, going against the grain of political and financial opportunism, suffered humiliation and financial losses and much more.
Manfred says:
July 19, 2010 at 1:54 pm
“what is the process in Britain to remove the title from a “Lord” ?”
“Under the Forfeiture Act 1870 those convicted of treason are
disqualified from sitting or voting as a member of the House of Lords.
There is no statutory disqualification in relation to any other criminal
offence.”
Have a look here Manfred!
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/convicted_criminals_in_the_house
Imagine!The House of Lords does not even keep a record of those who actually got caught and received a criminal conviction!
As for removing one….I concur with Ian E!
I would not mind a little bet that some numpty has Jones lined up for an MBE at least!
The only thing that astonishes me about this post is how many are astonished about Jones;s involvement in the white wash!
Even though the news that Phil Jones picked the papers that the Oxburgh enquiry examined is morally disgusting, I cannot express much surprise at the relevations that all three enquiries were dishonest in their processes, their investigations and their findings. Vice Chancellor Acton started the ball rolling by misleading the parliament. Oxburgh, who is contaminated by his investments in and involvement with the wind-generated electricity generator industry continued the trend and exhibited supreme arrogance in presenting their incredibly contentless ‘findings’. The Muir Russell ‘enquiry’ used immacculate form with no content, designed to be seen to be going through the motions required of it but no more than that.
I stated, before the first enquiry began, that the ‘Establishment’ would close ranks and ensure the continuation of business as usual for those who are following the AGW party line as it seemed obvious at the time that whoever was in government would keep the ‘Green’ taxes flowing to help pay back the enormous and horrifying fiscal deficit, aided by the Royal Society, itself a sick joke that has always been nothing more than a rather splendid Establishment Old Boy’s Club , always absolutely committed to keeping the peasantry in its place.
And now the MSM is running whacko stories about ocean acidification and other nonsenses to please those in power instead of doing some proper investigative journalism into these so-called enquiries.
Somebody wrote above:
“Also, in my humble opinion, this kind of behavior is endemic in academia and everyone should admit it. Once admitted, academics should acknowledge that the work that they do cannot be used by governments to make decisions involving billions of taxpayer dollars.”
My viewpoint is quite similar. I have worked for an university a long time. Most of the people there have no permanent job. To manage their job to continue at least for some time they need to have the opinion as their boss.
In this case ‘the boss’ was the big money coming for the research of the AGW hypothesis. To ascertain that the funding would continue people wanted to support the hypothesis with all kinds of means. To get big media coverage, to get people scared. They even forged their data, it seems to be the case.
But in reality many decisions simply need to be based on the science… How can we be sure… Maybe this kind of behavior is too common among scientists.
…”CRU agreed that they were a fair sample of the work of the Unit as the report stated…”
Deal Phil
The selected papers are *not* representative of the CRU’s work. In the end, it appears that UEA fed a list to the Royal Society, which was vetted by Jones (!).
Even without all this, how can you assume that we all *know* that the CRU would be obviously involved in an investigation directed at itself? Jones’ rubber-stamping of the list, if we are to believe Oxburgh, is a direct involvement that violates the spirit of the inquiry. Jones could have said: ” I have no opinion on the matter”; instead it now appears he agreed with the RS that the list was representative.
Even if we did know that, isnt it a ‘bad practice’, wrong-headed and just plain wrong, on the part of the Oxburgh inquiry, to ‘ask’ the Jones such questions?
If I were a UK Machiavellian politician (“but I repeat myself”) who was having second thoughts about CAGW and wished to discredit it in a hands-off way, I’d have appointed whitewash committees and let the hapless warmers dig themselves a deeper hole.
Can we get this gubermental practice placed into the courts? I just got a speeding ticket (not really, just an example) and would love to be able to decide what evidence is used in my court case.
Has anyone seen the papers he put forward? are they even papers that should of been put forward?
The big question here is what is happening with the MSM. This has got this far because they aren’t prepared to question anything on this. Why? They presumably believe they can get away with it because they do not think the MSM will run with it – as they haven’t. This is pretty serious from a democracy perspective, and I really hope that eventually somebody gets to the bottom of this. There was talk of govenment beaurocrats restricting web access to sensitive sites on the back of terrorism legisltation, and if the free press is not free it will be a truly sad day for democracy. In some ways I hope they carry on like this to make more people uneasy about what is happening.
Chris V says:
July 19, 2010 at 8:45 pm
So… which CRU papers were left out that should have been reviewed?
Just go to ClimateAudit and look at the past posts on the relevant papers, they were all left out.
and for those of you criticising the british for this, I would like to point out it is the british legal process which has allowed bishop hill to get this information. That part of british democracy appears to be working fine, it is the media that is not publicising it. There is nothing to stop the foreign press picking up the story – which they don’t appear to be doing, so this appears to be a worldwide problem. Any criticism of this is very restrained and almost appears to run on rails. Were they persuaded criticism was a danger to mankind and now not wanting to accept they were hood-winked? Was it the replacement of newspaper advertising with web advertising, and publicly funded global warming bodies filling the breach? If this blog is as popular as claimed from time to time (Sorry Anthony – you have to be sceptical of everything on this 😉 ) they are aware of the criticisms and surely have the resources to respond.
On a separate note, why is there no possibility to approve or disapprove of comments on whatsupwiththat – especially with the new post of the week? Filtering by most recommended and least recommended is a good way to show the weight of feeling and filter the most interesting comments.
Chris V says:
July 19, 2010 at 8:45 pm
So… which CRU papers were left out that should have been reviewed?
————Reply:
Start with Harry_Read_Me. That alone would have sunk the entire Climate Research Unit and Phil Jones better than a 100-meter rise in sea level. (Surely you wouldn’t limit the selection to just Pee-Reviewed publications, would you?)
“According to the World Bank, turnover of carbon trading reached $126 billion in 2008. PointCarbon estimates trading in 2009 was about $130 billion.”
$130 billion being sucked out consumers pocket going where? To do what? Who’s pockets are being lined?
The motive behind those perpetrating the CRU scandal becomes ever more apparent as the ‘establishment’ and politicos strive to apply the whitewash.
This is good news for all of us who support the null hypothesis of climate change, as these sorts of revelation will finally bury the rotting copse of climate cargo science.
No wonder Phil Jones was on the verge of suicide – pacing up and down the hallway, a dead man walking, wringing his hands and muttering “the games up, the games up.” Then along comes Oxburgh, winks at Jones, smiles knowingly, and says “why don’t you just suggest a couple of papers that can stand up to scrutiny, old chap. No questions will be asked and I’ll redact your name.”
Dear Virginian Colonials, :-))
Err, how are you getting along without us? Everything tickety-boo? Spendid! Now, err………this is all rather embarrassing to have to ask this, but err, well, we’ve been doing an awful lot redecorating in the last few months & seem to have compeltely run out of whitewash. Back here in blighty we usually have loads of the stuff stored right next to the bovine faecal storage unit, often needed to sweeten government announcements! We honestly thought we had loads left but one or two nameless nerds have over done it with the brush, got whitewash everywhere, up to & including the faecal storage unit! Please help. AtB
More seriously chaps, NEVER have a public inquiry unless you know the outcome beforehand! Saves a lot of red faces all round!
James Sexton says: July 19, 2010 at 8:06 pm Thanks for your comments on stupidity. I am stuck on the Forrest Gump line: “Stupid is as stupid does”
On the positive side, we are seeing through the veil now regarding the CRU/UEA science. The reason we can is solely, I think, because of the blogosphere’s venue with its openness. With the knowledge of the CRU/UEA scientific processes that once were behind the veil comes the ability to apply critical analysis.
Secrecy was their only real weapon against independent thinkers.
Stay positive.
John
When our leaders and representatives are “Stupid”, “Out of Touch”, “Thumbing their nose at us”, “Making lewd remarks and gestures to us”, “Changing the rules to help their friends”, “Playing patty fingers with thieves”, “Undermining our checks and balances -both legal and monetary”, “Dying of old age in office”, “Committing us to a dangerous course”, etc., who’s fault is it? Really?
The mess (or not) is all of our own making. Be we British, American, Canadian, Australian, Japanese, Indian, Chinese, or whatnot, We are all guilty when we elect or allow fools, and liars, and thieves to govern. It is our own fault. There isn’t an innocent in the world over the voting age. And that’s a proven, 6 million year old, scientific fact!
Pascvaks says:
July 20, 2010 at 7:19 am
…… “The mess (or not) is all of our own making……”
True, people deserve the government they live under. Government receives no power, unless given freely from the people.
Pascvaks says:
July 20, 2010 at 7:19 am
(…)
We are all guilty when we elect or allow fools, and liars, and thieves to govern. It is our own fault. There isn’t an innocent in the world over the voting age. And that’s a proven, 6 million year old, scientific fact!
————-Reply:
Remember, no candidate gets 100% of the vote. The fact that the idiots that elect such scumbags outnumber those of us who vote against them shouldn’t group us into the same indefensible camp.
Ryan says:
July 20, 2010 at 1:54 am
“It just doesn’t add up.”
Beg to differ old chap. Please stop messing with my futures.
The entire edifice is constructed, perpetuated and vigorously defended under the presumption that ALL the previous frauds can be bought off/paid for with the revenues from this grand lie.
The pension black holes.
The trade deficits.
The economic bailouts.
etc.
It is no wonder to me that the MSM, all the previously esteemed institutions and the vast majority of those people who could make a difference have persuaded themselves that the weak hypothesis must be upheld. Their current livelihoods and their fat pensions depend upon it. They see this and know it to be true. They are very afraid of/angry at us lot because of our dogged attempts to pop the only bubble on their limited, unimaginative horizon.
Someone challenged a warmer to justify this. We have a taker!
Phil Clarke says:
July 19, 2010 at 4:02 pm
Hmmm … so the newsworthy revelation is that CRU agreed that they were a fair sample of the work of the Unit as the report stated, is substantively different from CRU’s Director agreed that they were a fair sample of the work of the Unit? Is that the point here? What am I missing? Jones was in charge at the time most the papers were written so did anyone seriously think he wasn’t involved?
The relevance of him temporarily standing aside pending his exoneration escapes me.
OK. When Congress investigates BP on their safety record, then it would be perfectly fine in your view to not only chose a small list of drilling sites where BP has not had any problems, but PB should be able to approve of the sites to be investigate. I’m sure that would sit well with you.
There’s a ClimateGate pending in the release of Journolist emails. Just as the CRU emails enabled regular scientists to understand how they’d been fooled, so might these emails explain to the American people how they were fooled. Google ‘Daily Caller’.
===================
RockyRoad says:
July 20, 2010 at 8:11 am
Hmmm. Now, if only we could choose who the nation was permitted to vote for, rather than choosing between a few “candidates” that were selected for us to vote for.
Rupert Murdoch chooses our government, here in the UK, from amongst the “candidates” put forward by “The powers that be”. The sheeple “decide” based upon his newspapers coverage.
Nice work if you can get it.
….but PB should be able to approve of the sites to be investigate. I’m sure that would sit well with you.
There is not a shred of evidence that anything analagous to this happened in the Oxburgh enquiry. Jones stood aside while the investigation proceeded, but he was of course co-operating fully with the enquiry.
According to the mail, after the selection of papers had been done Jones was asked a question:
“Jones , when I asked him, agreed that the original sample was fair.”
Which the um, devious Oxburgh, in er, a sinister attempt at a whitewash reported as:
“CRU agreed that they were a fair sample of the work of the Unit”
Did anyone really believe that this meant the Director of the Unit when most of the papers were worked on was not consulted????
The name for such blatant self-serving internal reviews is Investi-GATE, which by the way will apply if and when actions are brought against fraudulent carbon trading schemes.
Science died years ago;when the scientific societies started alienating people with brains and an ethics. Money is the motivator , not search for truth,mediocracy is the ideal now ;that does not interfere with leader-ship or ask questions. The brains you need now you have pushed and bullied away, so now you fix your mess yourself.The alienated have ,during all your nonsense, worked on an other kind of technology- and world-view that offers MUCH better solutions and possibilities than the same old,same old they keep coming up with, more of the same is STUPIDITY: The “flying car” is invented,non-polluting energy is invented,blossoming deserts-system is invented, Magnetic rail sattelite and moon/space-vehicle-system is invented,no-tree-news is invented. But you can NOT have it, because the so-called scientists (who have just recently discovered that electric and magnetic forces exist in the Universe – but not yet the chem-trails-after 10 years) still are trying to keep the truth under wraps, thereby causing the destruction of the civilisations, heavily armed with the Rotschild-military-complex- monies- and those of those who still believe it is possible to stop time and have an eternal status quo where they forever will have tons of money, every day- and can feel superior to all the poor idiots who give it to them.You COULD have had it all – now it is not so sure you will have anything – including your life (poisons in food, water, air, medicine,toys, clothes – and chem-trails – and COREXIT (what comes from blending Corexit/Oil with the chem-trail that has saturated the sky over USA? Can- or dare- science solve that problem?????
Can I just remind readers in North America that in UK we have had a change of government within the last two months. Prior to May this year, we had been governed by the Labour party, (Tony Blair, Gordon Brown) for thirteen years. The new Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition has vowed to clean up the mess left by its predecessors and (to this observer at least) is making a fair fist of getting down to business.
But thirteen years of sleazy practice and even sleazier appointments are not cleared away in six weeks (at least not under our system). So in political terms, all the mess re inquiries that you see is a hangover from the previous regime’s practices. Climategate occurred on their watch, and all the inquiries were set up under their governance.
Like many of you, I hope that we will soon be returned to a state where the UK’s processes of government are returned to some semblance of rigour and intellectual honesty. But Rome was not built in a day….it will take a while for us to get there.
I would also note that, despite the many failings in our way of arranging matters, it was the leading pro-AGW newspaper in UK that saw fit to arrange a public meeting to discuss Climategate. And to allow a platform to Steve McIntyre and Doug Keenan (both Canadians) as well as more Establishment figures. So maybe we do things just a wee bit differently from other systems, but occasionally these ways have some merit too.
RockyRoad says:
July 20, 2010 at 5:09 am
(Surely you wouldn’t limit the selection to just Pee-Reviewed publications, would you?)
In the circumstances, that seems a strangely apt typo…
Thanks Anthony. I join with others in wishing Dr Schneider’s family comfort in their time of profound grief.
You are indeed a class act Mr Watts. How you manage to be so diplomatic escapes me at times, but then again, I have always been one to call it like it is and end up hurting feelings. That is why we are all so very fortunate to have a fella like you taking the time to give all of us a voice out there.
Cheers, and thanks again old bean.
DaveS says:
July 20, 2010 at 9:45 am
RockyRoad says:
July 20, 2010 at 5:09 am
(Surely you wouldn’t limit the selection to just Pee-Reviewed publications, would you?)
In the circumstances, that seems a strangely apt typo…
—————Reply:
Typo? What typo?
What’s all the fuss about?
You start with a ‘preferred outcome’ and fit all the pieces in after that, Phil is there to make sure the jigsaw is ‘fitted up’ nicely it’s all based on a ‘model’ called AGW and how to “Tuck up mankind with an uproarious and fantastical piece of ‘way out there’ writing!”
…………………….. – “nothing to see here ladies and gentlemen! NOW do please move along!”
Fantasy isn’t dead in the Disney of East Anglia.
I have nothing against wind turbines and other new energy devices and new transport systems, just the opposite.
I think that the global warming hypothesis was from the beginning supported by nuclear energy companies, not only by some ‘greens’. In America they had some 30 years ago the ideology there are only two ways to get much more energy. The other was nuclear energy, the other was coal. If coal had the problem of warming the earth then there was only nuclear energy choice left.
I think that there is much more probability that the climate will from now on become cooler than warmer than in the recent past. That is because of the sun emitting less and less energy. From the past we know that it meant a cooler climate. I see no reason the amount of co2 would effect climate much.
Most scientists are just like other people. Many of them are just fond of money and power. And those were available if you supported AGW hypotheses. Of course there were others who had different motives, such as ‘saving the planet’ and so on. About Phil Jones’ motives I don’t know. But it is quite clear that they are trying to whitewash his doings now.
So, should this be called Climategate’s Investigationsgate?
There’s nothing new here. British governments and institutions have always set up completely corrupt and ineffectual enquiries, whether it be on Climategate, the Iraq war, Dr. Kelly’s suspicious death, etc etc practically going back to the Ark. The *whole point* of them is to exonerate anyone who might actually be culpable and cover up the real facts. After all, we also have a long tradition of locking up the wrong people for serious crimes. Watch a few episodes of Yes, Minister and you’ll get the hang of the principle.
In the good old days, two wrongs did not make a right. In the world of post-normal science (and particularly any “investigation” of the “integrity” of its practitioners), it would appear that one can only conclude: if you ask the wrong questions of the wrong people, you are well on the path to finding the right answers.
Phil Clarke:
Please keep making your posts.
The subject of this thread is about a clear example of corruption in an investigation, and such a subject has little humour. Hence, your posts provide comic relief that is greatly appreciated by those of us who enjoy such satire.
Richard
Larry writes:
“On a separate note, why is there no possibility to approve or disapprove of comments on whatsupwiththat – especially with the new post of the week? Filtering by most recommended and least recommended is a good way to show the weight of feeling and filter the most interesting comments.”
My feelings would be hurt if I received a low rating.
James Sexton writes:
“Nothing better could be expected of them.”, then you’ll agree with me when I say they lacked the ability to see past their fallacy and understand the chosen course of action was not the best course of action, for themselves, for the science, or for the citizens of the world.”
(Point 1) You left out the part when I said that Phil Jones and others lied in presenting the hockey stick as the product of the best in science, statistics, and scientific method. Their common fault is their hubris. They should have honestly said that first rate science is beyond what went into the hockey stick and beyond what they can achieve given their present resources and organization. (Point 2) That kind of work should be given to research institutions in the private sector, not to universities. The old model of the university cannot support science that feeds directly into multibillion dollar policy decisions. All such scientific projects should be run on the model of the Manhattan Project and should exist in private enterprise fully outside of the government.
Kay says:
July 19, 2010 at 5:02 pm
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. It seems that there’s no justice in the world….
__________________________________________________
Welcome to reality where the dishonest win big and those with integrity are considered sheep for the shearing.
Dave L says:
July 19, 2010 at 6:24 pm
James Sexton,
You must read the following treatise:
http://fravia.com/realicra/basiclawsofhumanstupidity.htm
_________________________________________________________
AHhh yes, the biggest drawback to civilization. In the wild the usual penalty for stupidity is death and the genes are normally not passed on.
Deborah says:
July 19, 2010 at 8:32 pm
dp says: He’s put his legacy in stone: “Here rests Phil Jones’ integrity”. No matter – it was apparantly little used.
Oh what the heck! I’m feeling a bit morbid tonight so here ya go!
http://tiggerstestblog.blogspot.com/2010/07/if-it-wasnt-so-maddening-id-laugh.html
__________________________________________________
Super, but you need to add a few touches of snow
Theo Goodwin says:
“(Point 1) You left out the part when I said that Phil Jones and others lied in presenting the hockey stick as the product of the best in science, statistics, and scientific method. Their common fault is their hubris. They should have honestly said that first rate science is beyond what went into the hockey stick and beyond what they can achieve given their present resources and organization. ”
I agree quite much with that.
Phil Jones probably knew that the Hockey Stick was a construction not really based on the data, but it was the twisted arrangement of the data trying to show something they wanted to show. They intentionally constructed such a curve to get much publicity and to get people scared. Phil Jones probably knew quite well that the Hockey Stick was not based on the science, but ‘on the politics’.
Theo Goodwin says:
“(Point 2) That kind of work should be given to research institutions in the private sector, not to universities. The old model of the university cannot support science that feeds directly into multibillion dollar policy decisions. All such scientific projects should be run on the model of the Manhattan Project and should exist in private enterprise fully outside of the government.”
I disagree with that. I think that research institutions in the private sector are more vulnerable to create biased research results than government institutions. In the private sector they are completely dependent on the private funding; if there is not the desired result the funding stops. In this climategate case researchers were as well dependent on such funding, which would cease, if the results weren’t as desired. If in government institutions people would have the permanent funding regardless of their results, if they are as expected and as desired or not, they are more bound to tell the truth about their results?
—
The other factor behind the climategate was of course that many people doing the research were seriously thinking that something really bad would happen (if something is not done for co2), that they wanted to tell even lies concerning their data. To tell lies to get people scared and to get politicians to do something.
About Phil Jones’ motives I don’t know well. And I don’t really know what would be the best way to get justice to him. In my opinion he is just a victim of this case. He wanted to do the best for the society and for himself. The real problem is somewhere in the whole structure of IPCC. Most scientists are as human as any other people. There was too much pressure on them.
But what is the lesson?
Maybe one day we will learn how the climate works. IPCC was not very successful with that, they were too one-sided. But something new has been learned about the climate anyway. At least we know that the global temperature is dependent on many factors, which were left out by IPCC.
Something has been learned about the research institutions, too?
Any ideas what action can we take to expose this fraud? Well I should rephrase that to ‘deal’ with this fraud? We can expose it all day long over the web but it doesn’t stop them.
I am late to the party here, just reading all the piling on. I certainly felt like doing that myself. However in reading the comments here I couldn’t help but be amazed that some people actually attempted to imply that this is no big deal. I come from a background that includes a childhood in a cult and a subsequent rejection of all things faith into two science degrees. I have agreat sympathy for those who have chosen to believe that their cause is so just that no negatives can be considered, they are terribly misguided. They mean well but they have no comprehension of how they have rejected the most fundamental building block of science….questioning.
Ryan says:
July 20, 2010 at 1:54 am
We find ourselves forced to ask the question: “Why are the Establishment so keen to ensure that the people don’t discover that AGW is a fraud?”….
I am coming to the conclusion that we are focussing too much on the monkey and not the organ grinder. Who is paying for this AGW research? Why is it entrusted to third-rate universities in the UK that carry out a minimum of real observations for the most important issue since the invention of the atom bomb? Why are so many governments world-wide banging the same drum?
It just doesn’t add up.
_________________________________________________________-
Oh yes it does.
If you were a politician would you want to have to answer to voters or do as you please and answer to no one?
The EU with its unelected leadership seems to be the “pilot study” of the hidden agenda. It is interesting President Bush already signed one agreement with the EU to “harmonize” US laws with that of the EU. Also see: http://www.tpnonline.org/TPN%20transatlantic%20market%20paper%20FINAL.pdf
The critical e-mail is this one mentioning Global Governance & Sustainable Development (B1) and Ged Davis.
Here is more on the (B1) scenario written by Davis: IPCC Emissions Scenarios
Here is who Ged Davis is (Shell Oil executive with IPCC connection)
Here is the context and history:
In Maurice Strong’s 1972 First Earth Summit speech, Strong warned urgently about global warming
Obama’s Chief Science Adviser is John Holden.’In their 1973 book “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions,” Holdren and co-authors Paul and Anne Ehrlich wrote:
“A massive campaign [read global warming/environmentalism] must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States. De-devlopment means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation. Resources and energy must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries.”
“The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge,” they wrote. “They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.””
The de-development plan is UN Division for Sustainable Development – full text of Agenda 21
Further plans of the UN: UN REFORM – Restructuring for Global Governance (notice Maurice Strong pops up again as the writer of the report from the Commission on Global Governance to the head of the UN. Our Global Neighborhood – Report of the Commission on Global Governance: a summary analysis
a lot of research and links about Agenda 21 in the USA
I hope that helps put the politicians take on Global Warming in context. It is a power grab all dressed up to make it easy for people to swallow. That is why is has been so blasted hard to kill. It has never been about science because it was planned from the very start forty years ago. It is like trying to discuss what color your wallet is with the thug who is trying to steal it – he really isn’t interested he just wants the money.
The futility of trying to control climate
On average world temperature is +15⁰C. This is sustained by the atmospheric Greenhouse Effect 33⁰C. Without the Greenhouse Effect the planet would be un-inhabitable at -18⁰C. The Biosphere and Mankind need the Greenhouse Effect.
So just running the numbers by roughly translating the Greenhouse Effect into ⁰C:
• Greenhouse Effect = 33.00⁰C
• Water Vapour accounts for about 95% of the Greenhouse Effect = + 31.35⁰C
• Other Greenhouse Gasses GHGs account for 5% = ~1.65⁰C
• CO2 is 75% of the effect of all GHGs = 1.24⁰C
• Most CO2 in the atmosphere is natural, more than 93%:
• Man-made CO2 is less than 7% of total atmospheric CO2 = 0.087⁰C:
• so closing carbon economies of the Whole World could only ever achieve a virtually undetectable <1/10 ⁰C.
As the temperature reduction that could be achieved by closing the whole of the World’s Carbon economies is less than 1/10 ⁰C, how can the Green movement and their supporting politicians think that their remedial actions can limit warming to only + 2.00 ⁰C?
See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy0_SNSM8kg
So the probability is that any current global warming is not man-made and in any case such warming could be not be influenced by any remedial action taken by mankind however drastic.
If this is really so, then the prospect should be greeted with Unmitigated Joy:
• concern over CO2 as a man-made pollutant can be discounted.
• it is not necessary to damage the world’s economy to no purpose.
• if warming were happening, it would lead to a more benign and healthy climate for all mankind.
• any extra CO2 is already increasing the fertility of all plant life and thus enhancing world food production.
• a warmer climate, within natural variation, would provide a future of greater opportunity and prosperity for human development. This has been well proven in the past and would now especially benefit the third world.
Nonetheless, this is not to say that the world should not be seeking more efficient ways of generating its energy, conserving its energy use and stopping damaging its environments. And there is a real need to wean the world off the continued use of fossil fuels simply on the grounds of:
• security of supply
• increasing scarcity
• rising costs
• their use as the feedstock for industry rather than simply burning them.
The French long-term energy strategy with its massive commitment to nuclear power is impressive, (85% of electricity generation).
Even if one is concerned about CO2, Nuclear Energy pays off, French CO2 emissions / head are the lowest in the developed world.
However in the light of the state of the current solar cycle, it seems that there is a real prospect of damaging cooling occurring in the near future for several decades.
Johnny de Vulcan says:
July 20, 2010 at 9:38 am
I admit, you really had me there, till you mentioned Chem Trails and I realised you were just puilling the one with bells on.
Hannah Virtanen writes:
“If in government institutions people would have the permanent funding regardless of their results, if they are as expected and as desired or not, they are more bound to tell the truth about their results?”
Thanks for all your very good comments. The scientists (and all other staff) should be employed by the research institute and not by the project. The projects should be Managed like the Manhattan Project. These things exist and have existed for some time. There are research hospitals that employ scientists and laboratory staff who do, say, cancer research and who might work on several projects during their careers or might work on just one project. They are employed and managed by the research hospital, not by the associated medical school or university, and they are rewarded for their achievements, usually judged by publications, not for the success of the project. Some percentage of the funding comes from government grants but most of it comes from private contributions. In addition, there are safeguards that have been bulit in over the years. No group of researchers in one of these institutions would claim that a cure for AIDS must be found in ten years or the human race will be devastated. These institutions might be non-profits, technically, but they are managed like private businesses, or better, and not like universities.