Quote of the Week – Note to NOAA

Steve McIntyre at ClimateAudit has written another essay on the poor way that CRU/UEA and NOAA have dealt with FOIA requests. To say “poor”, that means in some cases “not at all”. He makes this salient point:

…if the climate community wants to get the Climategate affair behind them, the best course of action for them is to voluntarily get any and all documents pertaining to the events on the public record, rather than contesting the production of each and every document. If a NOAA scientist is in possession of documents that have been destroyed by CRU scientists, NOAA should find out precisely what their employees have and voluntarily put it in the public domain.

Indeed. Eventually all of this will come out. You may as well get it out now and get it over with. Full essay here at ClimateAudit

70 thoughts on “Quote of the Week – Note to NOAA

  1. Even after this time the information was made available there would be doubts as to the accuracy of what is produced. There is a history of using “Proper” “Adjustments” of historical references already by the “Team”!
    “Fool Me Once”!!! That was years ago! But they keep trying.

  2. Don’t forget to look into the background to Climategate and find out who has been controlling things behind the scenes.

    For the UK view, do a search for Brandon Gough Common Purpose Climategate.

  3. Dragging ones feet is a good trade for these guys as of now. They do not see anything happening to their reputations, except in the “unconvinced” column. Those votes were not to behad anyway. A large enough shit in opinion against them (I see no hope for that), barring more revelations.

  4. I can’t think of any other “science” that works this way………

    Now the new motto is communicating their message better.

    It’s still the same old message.

  5. If they are in possession of information/data and refuse to release it for peer review, then what they are practicing is not “science” nor should they be called “scientists.”

    GPlant

  6. If any scientist has to hide any correspondence, papers or studies developed using public funds the only conclusion that can be drawn is that he or she already knows their work is incomplete and/or flawed, and will not pass scrutiny. If their work is sound, what possible fear could they have of exposure?

  7. NOAA is crying the blues over proposed budget cuts that have them in the crosshairs, claiming that many will die if thier services are cut back.
    Here is thier golden chance to prove thier worth. All it costs are a few pieces of paper some grinches in thier organization can’t seem to part with.

  8. Climategate is no longer a major issue to most of the public. It’s primarily important to the skeptical side who keep bringing it up to cast doubt on the findings of mainstream climate science.

    http://bigthink.com/ideas/22812

    And that was last March.

  9. From the Air Vent, never ever stops giving.

    10.FOIA said
    November 17, 2009 at 9:57 pm
    We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps.

    We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents.
    Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.

  10. This will turn out to be, in every aspect the green campaign’s Watergate. The final chapters will be complete with letters of reprimand, sanctions, firings, and political fallout. It will touch and grind down all those political and private officials attached to this grand campaign, as the VOTING public becomes more and more aware: We have been duped. And on a grander more global scale than missing sections on a tape, and fingerprints on an office doorknob.

  11. The political process, of legislating a “climate policy”, first needs to be stopped dead in its tracks, worldwide. The EPA needs to be thoroughly reamed out, replacing the biased environmentalist ideology there with a determined commitment to sound science and the public welfare. The new batch of Republican legislators will have failed if they don’t see the political fight through to an effective end. The IPCC needs to be killed, or made political poison for any politician to associate with it. The lead IPCC scientists need to be thrown out of their lead positions, and whether noisily in public or quietly behind closed doors, they need to be thrown out of science altogether, for incompetence bordering on, if not actually constituting, fraud.

    But above all, the “laissez faire/science is settled” faith in the current climate “consensus” among scientists themselves needs to be replaced by a determination to find and nail down the physical truth, while humbly admitting what is not in fact known. All of the authoritative scientific institutions have been suborned to a false and incompetent consensus, and their leadership which allowed this to happen need to be thoroughly deposed or humbled. The goal is the much-lauded, but in truth wholly absent, self-correction of the fundamental science. Those who think there might be even a little “greenhouse effect”, and would seek “common ground” with the consensus, are not showing that determination, that freedom from dogma. Judith Curry is as incompetent, and as harmful to science in the long run, as is James Hansen, Kevin Trenberth, Michael Mann, etc., because there are already scientists like myself that know — not believe, but know — there is no greenhouse effect, and that definitive data exists so that all competent scientists should know it.

    All argumentation now within the assumptions of the current consensus is just consuming valuable time, not because of runaway climate, but because of runaway dogma, especially the current scientific dogma. No one can breathe easily until the basic science has been corrected, and the miseducation of yet another generation of scientists and the public has been cut off and reversed.

    Will we leave this problem to the next generation as well?

  12. This is so similar to parents trying to tell kids that lying is bad. Kids lie in part because they’re afriad of getting punished for what truly happened. What they don’t realize is that by lying, they’ll get in trouble when the truth comes out (and it will) but get into more trouble for lying about it.

  13. The force of public opinion is greater than the force of law (FOIA or other). Here’s the message we need to get out. There has only been 20 years of warming, 1978-1998, in the past 63 years- nothing unprecedented- just a continuation of the trend since the LIA. Scientific studies and arguments about climate forcings and sensitivity are important and should be the main thrust of climate science, but are not germane to whether or not we have CAGW. What matters is the data. The data is inconclusive because trends are only known in hindsight, but with 30 years of slight cooling, 20 years of significant warming, and 13 years of flat lining, there is no evidence that warming comes close to the projections of the CAGW models or is unprecedented. I think if we stress this simple message, the journalists will eventually get it, and the agenda driven scientists will be forced back to science as practiced in other fields which includes sharing data so that claims can be properly evaluated. “Climate change” fears are more difficult to counter and require the simple truths that climate extreme events have always happened (with examples) and do inspire fear as they always have. Climate is a composite, and we need to break it down into its components: global warming, sea level rise, catastrophic storms, etc. and show, as Pielke Jr. and others have, that there is nothing unprecedented or unexpected in the events sensationalized by the fear mongers. The above is an example of the KISS principle. It is data-based and avoids all the haranguing about theory and disputed claims.

  14. The more I see of Steve McIntyre’s work the more I like him. If anyone can get these people looking at the real world it is him.
    Please keep up the good work!!

  15. The political process, of legislating a “climate policy”, needs to be stopped dead in its tracks, worldwide. And no one can breathe easily until the basic science has been corrected, and the miseducation of yet another generation of scientists and the public has been cut off and reversed.

    Will we leave this problem to the next generation as well?

  16. for oakden wolf – so what if Climategate is not a major issue to the public? “Climate change” in general is no longer a major issue for the public, that’s the reality.

    Climategate remains a constant, bleeding wound for the warmists and it will continue to drag them down in every debate until it is properly dealt with. Till then, it stands as proof that the people who are pushing the “climate change” theory the hardest are to a man Cheats, Frauds, and Liars. And that will be pointed out every day for as long as this remains an issue in the public arena.

  17. They will fight every step along the way – the process of being dragged into the sunlight. They are dependent on lies, and secrecy to maintain their fictions.

  18. In a few years, when the perspective of history is clear, this episode will be used by teachers as the perfect example of science gone bad, of scientists who gave in to their inner demons and took a course of obfuscation, deceit and outright fraud.

    Because they knew they were right before they conducted any science and they said so. When reality proved them wrong and they couldn’t face the embarrassment of public humiliation, their internal devils decided a cover-up was justified until they knew they could prove they were actually correct.

    In simple English that is known as digging their holes deeper thinking they were digging their way out.

    They will be laughing stocks.

  19. Sure all the delays smack of guilt. I know they won’t be open with this. The longer resistance to FOIA goes on the more it is confirmed to everyone what so many people had suspected about ‘global warming’. I just want to public to be made fully aware of all the delays. After that they will decide what to think of ‘global warming science’.

    ClimateGate, the gift that keeps on giving.

    :-)

  20. You may as well get it out now and get it over with.

    That would be nice. But it’s unlikely that they will willingly show the world what they are afraid the world will see in them. At some point one would think legal pressure from FOIAs would force them.

    I love the smell of ClimateGate in the morning.

  21. Considering their findings were to be used to make law and regulations that are intended to cause major changes in the way people live, and national security is not involved, there can be no excuse for not releasing all information and there is no excuse or reason for law makers not demanding all information, unless they don’t want it released.


  22. Oakden Wolf says:
    March 13, 2011 at 5:58 am
    Climategate is no longer a major issue to most of the public. It’s primarily important to the skeptical side who keep bringing it up to cast doubt on the findings of mainstream climate science.

    Oakden – you do not appear to have read what has happened.

    Either a parliamentary enquiry has been lied to by Lord Acton -or- the Information Commissioner has been lied to by the University of East Anglia (I believe this is a criminal offence).

    Now you may accept Universities and their representatives being dissemblers – but it would seem to me that any establishment that cannot be trusted should firstly, have all government funded research and contracts (both US and UK) stopped; and secondly, all accreditation for provision of degrees should be immediately withdrawn from the University. Then when their minds were a little more focused, they could decide which of them were telling the truth. The one that was untruthful could then face the consequences.

  23. Charles S. Opalek, PE says:
    March 13, 2011 at 5:28 am

    “If their work is sound, what possible fear could they have of exposure?”

    Well take the GISTEMP Y2K error for example. Or the error where GISTEMP got November wrong because the data had carried over from October. In both cases the errors and correction had insignificant impact on global temperature. In other sciences these errors would have corrected and work goes on.

    But in both the above cases the scientists were smeared and great effort went into producing a grand narrative that the errors were deliberate and that the errors had a massive and important effect. Media stories appeared. That would never happen for another science.

    And that’s why one reason why scientists are reluctant to be open, because some things that are otherwise irrelevant can be span against them.

  24. “Climategate is no longer a major issue to most of the public. It’s primarily important to the skeptical side who keep bringing it up to cast doubt on the findings of mainstream climate science.”
    –Oakden Wolf

    No, you are incorrect. That is simply not the case, as you could plainly see if you’ve read any of the real meat of the FOIA discussions.

    The purpose of the FOIA requests and reviews of the Climategate emails is to provide the root science behind the claims and papers presented by “mainstream climate science” (if there is such a thing). Once the raw data and methodology is in hand, then it can be determined that the science is, or is not, correct as presented. All that’s asked for is the truth.

    Why do you have a problem with that?? Are you afraid that we’ll see behind the curtain and discover the “mainstream climate science” to be a humbug?

    We don’t mind being “wrong”, as long as it’s unpolluted science we’re being fed.

  25. Oakden Wolf says:
    March 13, 2011 at 5:58 am

    What is very much this March in the public’s eye is the economy. That is number one. How the government spends its tax money is number one. The fact that we get 50% of our energy source from abroad is number one. The fact that we subsidize undeserving, pie-in-the-sky “alternate energy” scams to the tune of hundreds of billions, is number one.

    The Representatives and Senators are the ones who represent the people, and they are the ones who must insure that the people’s money is spent wisely. Climategate is one of the forefront issues, if not the most important act of malfeasance, that typify the waste and fraud that left-wing alarmist eco-perpetrators have been allowed to carry on in this and past administrations. And, for the public’s sake, the cAGW hoaxers have to be brought to task and punished, as they have contributed the most to our current state of the economy, i.e., our precarious energy position, which has made our economy deteriorate so fast.

  26. It will never be behind us. They can have the emails behind them when they pry them from our ‘cold’ dead fingers.

    Or until those scientists behind the false science, scare tactics, and policy manipulation are taken to task publicly and grant money forfeited. Oh yeah, and I also want Gore and the IPCC to give back the peace prize and pay back the prize money at 5% interest per year. And the Gore movie to be always placed in the fiction section at movie stores. And maybe one line of Government Motors (GM) 4×4 SUV V8 with honkin tires to be named the Al Gore Edition.

    Then i might be able to forgive and forget… HOBO

  27. For people who publicly espouse scientific and political beliefs 24/7, this CRU seems strangely reticent to share.

  28. To Oakden Wolf, you say climategate is no longer a major issue to the general public. You are right it is not; nor is climate science in general. Most folks have more pressing needs that they worry about. However, start passing laws and instituting policies that make everything they buy more expensive while making the companies they work for less competitive and the interest in climate science and climategate will skyrocket. Just look at the hornet’s nest stirred up in Australia over carbon taxes. You don’t really know how people feel about something until you ask them to spend money on it.

  29. Oakden Wolf says:
    March 13, 2011 at 5:58 am
    “Climategate is no longer a major issue to most of the public. It’s primarily important to the skeptical side who keep bringing it up to cast doubt on the findings of mainstream climate science.”

    Get the message to Congress, quickly. The House has voted to remove EPA’s power to regulate CO2 and voted to defund EPA. The House and the Senate told “Cap’n Trade” to take a walk last year.

  30. A question for the occasional warmist posting on WUWT, or for warmists anywhere – what on Earth is wrong with this and why are you all so strongly opposed to this concept?

    “if the climate community wants to get the Climategate affair behind them, the best course of action for them is to voluntarily get any and all documents pertaining to the events on the public record, rather than contesting the production of each and every document”

  31. DEEBEE says:
    March 13, 2011 at 5:01 am

    “…”

    Um… did you really mean to leave that “f” out? The sentence works well either way… and I tend to agree most strongly with the non “f” version.

    :D

  32. Latitude @ 5:02 says:

    I can’t think of any other “science” that works this way………

    Well you quoted it, because this isn’t science. As a model it is far closer to what you expect from any special interest group or lobbying organization.

  33. “Climategate is no longer a major issue to most of the public. It’s primarily important to the skeptical side who keep bringing it up to cast doubt on the findings of mainstream climate science.”

    The reasons is it’s not a major issue with the public are complex. First off, the public, by and large have no interest in the great CAGW scare, they are assuming that the scientists have it right and that the politicians will do something about it. They have to wake up to the fact that the “something” will have devastating effects on their way of life and their children’s future, as a Green agenda is forced on every household in the land regardless of economic costs. When they do, the Greens are doomed, which presumably is why there is a widespread desire among senior green activists like Hansen to dispense with democracy to tackle this problem.

    The other reason is of course that the MSM almost completely ignored the story and the establishment kicked in with whitewashes galore. So you’re right only the sceptics are interested in getting the truth out to the public. Do you see anything wrong with that?

  34. Yes Oakden, it must be mighty annoying that something hoped for prayed for by the perpetrators would be a short lived phenomenon just wont go away, grows wings and flys around dropping golden eggs on we few sceptics.

    You are correct. It is the main reason we laugh at claims such as “… the findings of mainstream climate science.” Oh how we laugh. Until we see our energy bills. Our food bills. Our fuel bills. Our water bills. Our children’s clothes/school/shoes bills.

    Oh and; Our landscapes. Our society. Our future. Our prosperity.

    All messed up because of “… the findings of mainstream climate science.” which have touched stained everything, diverted funds from stuff that could actually be permanently fixed and fattened the wallets of charlatans, liars and cheats. And will continue to do so unless we few persist in showing the world, one human at a time, that such is the case.

  35. DEEBEE says:
    March 13, 2011 at 5:01 am
    Dragging ones feet is a good trade for these guys as of now. They do not see anything happening to their reputations, except in the “unconvinced” column. Those votes were not to behad anyway.

    A large enough shit in opinion against them (I see no hope for that), barring more revelations.
    ——
    REPLYFreudian slip, DB? Works for me!

  36. We keep talking about “Science” requiring access to data and methods, but there is no Science here. Science is all about running and reproducing the results of Experiments. Computer simulations are not experiments. It may have been a while since I received my degree, but I can’t imagine the Scientific Method has changed so much.

  37. The gift that keeps on giving.It takes a while for reality to get our attention, longer if we are paid not to see, but eventually reality is the only place left to go. The CRU emails nailed the nonspecialists attention and the lack of data to support outrageous claims of certainty, denial of the medieval warm period, denial of the historic cycles of weather, the science is settled meme and the most obnoxous demonising of inquiring minds. Yes the team is right they have a messaging problem, steady streams of verbal diarrhea are indigestable to most sane folk. Phil Jones testimony was enough to deflate this CAWG nonsense, but as it is now officially a religious matter no amount of emperical data will change the underlying science. A very true statement especially if there never was actual science to support the belief.
    Climategate is a slow motion train wreck for acedemia, the rational members have seen the problem for future science and funding, but will wait for the proper authorities to correct the errors and ethical morass that was revealed. Now that the institutions have ignored or aggravated the percieved mess by claiming to have investigated (by not looking at the evidence) the ethical members of acedemia must now act on their own. I predict interesting days ahead and the credibility of taxpayer funded science and hence funding hangs in the balance.

  38. And that’s why one reason why scientists are reluctant to be open, because some things that are otherwise irrelevant can be span against them.

    So at least we can all agree that climate scientists are “reluctant to be open”.

    Of course, one then has to ask why they think it is more in their interest to be “reluctant to be open” than it is to address their mistakes head on.

    Putting themselves in a position where everything oozes out in little dribs and drabs certainly hasn’t helped them any.

  39. Oakden Wolf says:
    March 13, 2011 at 5:58 am
    Climategate is no longer a major issue to most of the public.

    I don’t think Climategate was ever much on the radar of the general public. Firstly, the issues and implications would be hard to understand if you were not a follower of the climate saga. Secondly, most of the MSM ignored or devoted minimal coverage to it. That being said, Climategate still shows that it is consequential when AGW proponents such as Richard Muller and Judith Curry have come to decry the behavior of certain individuals of the “team”. My analogy would be that the Climategate pot was never at a boil, but continues to simmer and will so as long as the obfuscation and whitewashing continues. Like a tiny sliver under the skin of science, it will continue to irritate and fester if ignored by the involved parties.

  40. Also fit for the headline, read at the end:

    The EESC president’s statement on the natural disaster in Japan and the Pacific region
    11
    Mar 2011
    Speaker: Staffan Nilsson
    Organisation: EESC
    On behalf of the EESC, I should like to express my sympathy with all the families of the victims in Japan. We stand shoulder to shoulder with all the people now struggling with the unfolding devastating effects of the earthquake in the Pacific region.

    The human and material damage is immense, and the EESC members’ thoughts are with the Japanese people and government.

    We express our support to our partners in those ACP countries potentially affected by this natural disaster.

    This is a time for solidarity, and we urge the EU and other international organisations to provide immediate and appropriate assistance, if needed, to help governments and civil society organisations in the region deal with this tragedy. We also call on humanitarian civil society organisations to react quickly to provide support to Japan and all the other affected countries.

    The earthquake and tsunami will clearly have a severe impact on the economic and social activities of the region. Some islands affected by climate change have been hit. Has not the time come to demonstrate on solidarity – not least solidarity in combating and adapting to climate change and global warming? Mother Nature has again given us a sign that that is what we need to do.

  41. Mike says:
    March 13, 2011 at 9:39 am
    May we see all you your e-mails?

    Yes Mike if you pay my salary and for my work.

  42. Pamela Gray says: March 13, 2011 at 6:17 am
    This will turn out to be, in every aspect the green campaign’s Watergate. The final chapters will be complete with letters of reprimand, sanctions, firings, and political fallout. It will touch and grind down all those political and private officials attached to this grand campaign, as the VOTING public becomes more and more aware: We have been duped. And on a grander more global scale than missing sections on a tape, and fingerprints on an office doorknob.
    —————————————————————
    Pamela Gray – Yeah but – the pollies still grind the public down with their ‘green’ policies and taxes – UK with its subsidized windmills and the EU totally wedded to co2 reduction. It will take hell to freeze over to shake these Fwits out of this lunacy. But maybe the financial crash there will happen soon to concentrate their minds. Wishful thinking?

    Douglas

  43. vindsavfuktare says:
    March 13, 2011 at 10:18 am

    I think this Nilsson character needs someone to give him a good kick up the backside! Such a blatant misuse of others gross misfortune to promote their own agenda is definately not acceptable behaviour!

  44. Mike says:
    March 13, 2011 at 9:39 am
    May we see all you your e-mails?

    All you will find are the frustrating attempts to get a hold of the raw original data, for my own self funded independent research, in order to find the truth on how the weather and climate works.

  45. Harry Dale Huffman says: March 13, 2011 at 6:38 am
    The political process, of legislating a “climate policy”, needs to be stopped dead in its tracks, worldwide. And no one can breathe easily until the basic science has been corrected, and the malediction of yet another generation of scientists and the public has been cut off and reversed.

    Will we leave this problem to the next generation
    ————————————————————————–
    The hubris that lies behind the ‘climate science’ is eclipsed by that which drives the policies of governments. And all that is trumped by that which lead to the collapse of the financial system lead by Greenspan, Rubin, Levitt and Summers. According to Brooksley Born, it seems that the lessons of the past have still not been learned and/or the remedies put into place. I notice that the governor of the Bank of England Merv King, is proposing reforms to manage the calamity that has overtaken that currency but is vehemently opposed by the same clique of bankers who want to keep playing at the casino. To my mind, these two issues are linked by the hubris and arrogance that drives them. Both are leading the world to a parlous condition of poverty and discontent. It has to be sorted now and not left to the next generation.

    Douglas

  46. No FOIA compliance, no more big govt. paychecks for NOAA.
    The GOP will continue to chop away the disfunctional dead branches of NOAA.

  47. Still think that this summed things up nicely, and it came from a rather unexpected source:

    “I had hoped, not very confidently, that the various Climategate inquiries would be severe. This would have been a first step towards restoring confidence in the scientific consensus. But no, the reports make things worse. At best they are mealy-mouthed apologies; at worst they are patently incompetent and even wilfully wrong. The climate-science establishment, of which these inquiries have chosen to make themselves a part, seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause.”

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/07/climategate-and-the-big-green-lie/59709

    P.S. vindsavfuktare (March 13, 2011 at 10:18 am) quotes:

    “Some islands affected by climate change have been hit.”

    Sigh… it never ends.

  48. onion2 says: “Well take the GISTEMP Y2K error for example. Or the error where GISTEMP got November wrong because the data had carried over from October. In both cases the errors and correction had insignificant impact on global temperature. In other sciences these errors would have corrected and work goes on.”

    Red herring. Fail.

  49. onion2 says: “… the scientists were smeared … That would never happen for another science. And that’s why one reason why scientists are reluctant to be open …”

    Wrong in so many ways.

    The researchers were enjoying an unusual level of public attention and influence. It was their job to do everything necessary to maintain their own credibility. As much as anybody else in observational science, they needed good design, solid procedure, and rigorous quality control.

    Lack of openness was already a festering sore when quality issues surfaced. It was outsiders who spotted errors, and mention of 1/2 a man-day per month quality control did nothing to build credibility.

    The threat of a good public bashing should have been their incentive to ensure their work was up to scratch. And when they got things wrong, the bashing that was duly delivered should have reminded them of what they needed to do all along.

    Now you want to trot out lame old excuses. Justify an emotional response, rather than a rational rsponse. Kinda suggests you’re not interested in learning and improvement.

    Put in another context: What to do if a restaurant serves sub-standard food? Do we pay-up and then protect the proprietor to avoid hurt feelings? Shelter the kitchen from further quality inspections? Somebody’s gonna get salmonella.

  50. Al Gored says:
    March 13, 2011 at 12:22 pm

    You might even say, in a political sense, that they have retreated into a bunker mentality.

  51. Re: The poll Oakden offers.

    I notice that the question is about trusting “scientists”, not climate scientists who are promoting catastrophic global warming and I also notice that another question addresses “warming” not man-made warming due to CO2 with almost certain catastrophic consequences.

    Hardly an objective poll.

  52. A fellow van-pooler, who works for the federal government as a contracting officer once received a FOIA request. Complying with the requirements was such a PIA that he told them he would send the requested information immediately, if they withdrew their FOIA request. And he did.

  53. The thing about Climategate was that the evidence of scientific chicanery and control by a small group of scientists, central to the IPCC, could not, and cannot be ignored. The various whitewashes are merely whitewishes; no one is listening to them any more; except the politicians who feed money into the self-serving bureaucracy of man made climate change.

    Get rid of the politicians who promote this BS.

  54. I remain enthralled by the patient and courteous persistence of Mr McIntyre (and, for that matter, David Holland) in pursuing their requests.
    Eventually, one hopes that it will dawn on the clowns at UEA and elsewhere that these people are not going to go away without legitimate answers to their questions.
    The pseudo-scientists hoped to make it into the history books, and I daresay they will, but not for the reasons they wanted.

  55. RIP the mainstream media. Dealt a fatal blow by their handling of “climategate” in early part of the twenty first century.


  56. Mike says:
    March 13, 2011 at 9:39 am
    May we see all you your e-mails?

    You have obviously not had a government contract or research grant. When you are under such a contract EVERYTHING that is in anyway to do with that contract is ‘vested’ in the government: your notebooks, your computer and everything you do on it, your ballpoint even sometimes your desk – everything. So if those emails have anything whatsoever to do with a government contract they are public property they are not ‘your emails’ they are the governments emails. If you don’t like that then don’t take government money for contracts or research grants.

  57. No doubt the legislative process needs to be stopped. It also includes the fallacy of smart grid and smart metering. Write your MP or representative!

  58. Robert of Ottawa, unfortunately here I am afraid that politicians are just enablers. Those really pushing this agenda are the Rothschild and other Thomsons who will benefit the most when politicans are moving favorable legislations, when Provincial politicians are exerting no control -in fact are condoning- what utilities such as Ontario or BC Hydro are peddling. Imagine their dream: have us pay for grid, power and salaries and them having license to not deliver the product we pay for!
    It was revealed that BC Hydro spent over $500 million peddling Power Smart thanks to Hoggan-Desmogblog and plan to spend another S400 million… Then another Billion bucks for the smart meters so they could implement their smart grid slavery scheme. BC Hydro salaries jumped from $336 million to almost $560million… those making over $150kper annum jumping 143%!
    So I see politicians here as merely willing enforcers of bigger interests and this is why despite climategate, and I would argue even if science was debunked, the Big Green offensive is bypassing these mere bumps on their way to $ and new found control on people’s lives. A new slavery!
    I agree that we have to derail their plan and identifying who are the groups -like the Thomsons, their newspaper etc… and the politicians that they support- and vote against them, expose them as much as possible.

  59. Steven McIntyre, not only are you a hot, hot, hot, hot, hot Irishman (compliments to your wife), you have, it seems to me, burned the midnight oil to bring Science back to its hayday, when men and women sat at their lab stools and hovered over an observation plot for the benefit of all. They received scant pay and little recognition for their efforts but nonetheless, brought us all a greater standard of health and livelihood the world had ever known. If we survive this sullied attempt to sheeple the people, we will have few to thank, but you would number among those we thank.

  60. Vindsavuktare said

    ” The earthquake and tsunami will clearly have a severe impact on the economic and social activities of the region. Some islands affected by climate change have been hit. Has not the time come to demonstrate on solidarity – not least solidarity in combating and adapting to climate change and global warming? Mother Nature has again given us a sign that that is what we need to do.”

    * * *

    Actually, I think it was ghosts.
    Somebody better call the Ghostbusters.

  61. Another excellent post by Mcyintyre and Watts.
    The Team obviously never heard of the saying

    ” When stuck in a hole, it is best to stop digging.”

  62. Get the message to Congress, quickly. The House has voted to remove EPA’s power to regulate CO2 and voted to defund EPA. The House and the Senate told “Cap’n Trade” to take a walk last year.

    This was going to happen Climategate or not when the new crop of GOP representatives got into Congress. As soon as the election happened, the Senate stonewalled any agenda on climate change because they knew economic issues would prevent it from going forward. The effectiveness of the climate change-skeptical campaign in reaching conservative politicians is very obvious, and Climategate was just another log on their bonfire, but not necessary to keep the signal fires burning.

    The problem is, combining climate change uncertainties with the recent nuclear plant problems after the Japanese earthquake is going to be another roadblock in the way of accelerated nuclear energization of the United States; just when things were starting to ramp up. Great, just great. We have to decarbonize this economy for reasons of national security, long-term energy stabilization, AND the environment. Maybe you clan that think nothing is happening ought read Paul Solotaroff’s article about Yellowstone in this month’s Men’s Journal. After you do that would you please tell the bark beetles that climate change isn’t happening so they will stop ruining the forests for the rest of us?

  63. Doug Allen on 13 March 2011 at 6:25 am says: There has only been 20 years of warming, 1978-1998, in the past 63 years- nothing unprecedented- just a continuation of the trend since the LIA. Scientific studies and arguments about climate forcings and sensitivity are important and should be the main thrust of climate science, but are not germane to whether or not we have CAGW. What matters is the data…The above is an example of the KISS principle. It is data-based and avoids all the haranguing about theory and disputed claims.

    Doug,

    You are so right to concentrate on the simple reality of the temperature record. This is exactly what I have been banging on about for the past several years both here and in other blog trails. Very few people understand that the real-world temperature evidence for man-induced climate change is extremely flimsy.

    My analysis is summed up in the following chart, the data for which, ironically, I took straight from the official UAE HadCRUT3 land/sea world temperature data series:

    http://www.thetruthaboutclimatechange.org/temps.html

    I think this chart helps to concentrate the mind wonderfully. I am confirmed in this opinion by the fact that, when in blog trails I challenge warmists with it, they hardly ever address the issues represented by it directly, almost always steering the argument off at a tangent to such things as: computer models, sea ice extent, floods, hurricanes, species extinction, coral reef damage, ocean acidification…in other words anything other than face up to the fact that the official temperature data shows that:

    (a) Between 1850 and 2010 (a 161 year timespan that that includes 120 years prior to the sharp post-World War 2 sharp increase in man-made atmospheric CO2) the Earth warmed at an average long term rate of only 0.4degC per century. (See the blue linear regression line.)

    (b) Superimposed on this utterly unremarkable temperature increase, there is a clearly visible ~67 year temperature cycle of about plus or minus 0.25degC. (See the red 11-year average curve.) This cycle also long pre-dates the post-World War II increase in man-made atmospheric CO2 and is commonly attributed to natural ocean temperature oscillations that have been going on for hundreds, maybe thousands, of years.

    (c) The latest upswing of this ~67 year cycle, between around 1970 and 2000, has a slope (as upswings always will have!) that is between 4 and 5 times steeper than the long term average of 0.4degC/century.

    I believe that point (c) is the key to understanding climate alarmism. It is no coincidence that warmists grew more and more excited through the last 30 years of the 20th century.
    As the temperature “soared” they became more and more convinced that they had found the real-world experimental evidence they needed to demonstrate convincingly
    that “alarming man-made CO2 warming was now occurring”.

    My conclusion? The simple test to decide between warmist and skeptical hypotheses is what happens to the temperature curve over the next decade or two. If, as I and many other skeptics suspect, it continues to wiggle around, broadly within plus or minus 0.25degC of the long term 0.4degC/century steady rise (i.e. within the red dotted “tunnel” shown in the above chart) all will turn out well for the world and the enthusiasm for the man-made CO2 warming hypothesis will slowly wither away. Alternatively, if the temperature curve soon resumes the heady upward trend that it was exhibiting between 1970 and 2000, it will be game, set and match to the warmists. Time will tell one way or the other.

    In the meanwhile, I think that the best thing that all data-realists can do is to publish as much real-world climate-related data as we can find. So Doug, do get in touch (and anybody else who feels the same way) at: davidsocrates2010@gmail.com to assist my cause.

Comments are closed.