A devastating response to “There’s nothing to see here, move along”

Guest post by John A

The usual armwaving denial that we should not trust our own lying eyes was delivered by a Harvard Professor in the Boston Globe:

James McCarthy, a respected Harvard professor who was a former Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author, sent a letter to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) today stressing that e-mails stolen from climate scientists do not undermine the evidenc[e] for manmade global warming.

McCarthy is board chair of both the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).

The letter reads “The scientific process depends on open access to methodology, data, and a rigorous peer-review process. The robust exchange of ideas in the peer-reviewed literature regarding climate science is evidence of the high degree of integrity in this process. The body of evidence that human activity is prominent agent in global warming is overwhelming. The content of these a few personal emails has no impact what-so-ever on our overall understanding that human activity is driving dangerous levels of global warming.”

In the words of Frank Drebin: “Nothing to see here, move along!”

Nothing to see here...from the Naked Gun 2 1/2

And then comes this response (comment 13) to which I’ve added a few paragraph breaks and one piece of emphasis:

I am a climate scientist, and it is clear that the evidence that “human activity is prominent [sic] agent in global warming” is NOT overwhelming. The repeated statement that it is does not make it so. Further, even if we accepted the hypothesis, cap-and-trade legislation does not do anything about it.

Here are the facts. We have known for years that the Mann hockey stick model was wrong, and we know why it was wrong (Mann used only selected data to normalize the principal component analysis, not all of it). He retracted the model. We have known for years that the Medieval Warm period occurred, where the temperatures were higher than they are now (Chaucer spoke of vineyards in northern England).

Long before ClimateGate it was known that the IPCC people were trying to fudge the data to get rid of the MWP. And for good reason. If the MWP is “allowed” to exist, this means that temperatures higher than today did not then create a “runaway greenhouse” in the Middle Ages with methane released from the Arctic tundra, ice cap albedo lost, sea levels rising to flood London, etc. etc.), and means that Jim Hansen’s runaway greenhouse that posits only amplifying feedbacks (and no damping feedbacks) will not happen now. We now know that the models on which the IPCC alarms are based to not do clouds, they do not do the biosphere, they do not explain the Pliocene warming, and they have never predicted anything, ever, correctly.

As the believers know but, like religious faithful, every wrong prediction (IPCC underestimated some trends) is claimed to justify even greater alarm (not that the models are poor approximations for reality); the underpredictions (where are the storms? Why “hide the decline”?) are ignored or hidden.

As for CO2, we have known for years that CO2 increases have never in the past 300,000 years caused temperature rise (CO2 rise trails temperature increase). IPCC scientists know this too (see their “Copenhagen Diagnosis”); we know that their mathematical fudges that dismiss the fact that CO2 has not been historically causative of temperature rise are incorrect as well. We have also known for years that the alleged one degree temperature rise from 1880 vanishes if sites exposed to urban heat islands are not considered.

We have long known that Jones’s paper dismissing this explanation (Jones, et al. 1990. Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land, Nature 347 169- 172) is wrong and potentially fraudulent (see the same data used to confirm urban heat islands in Wang, W-C, Z. Zeng, T. R Karl, 1990. Urban Heat Islands in China. Geophys. Res. Lett. 17, 2377-2380). Everyone except Briffa knows that the Briffa conclusions are wrong, and why they are wrong; groups in Finland, Canada (lots of places actually) show cooling by this proxy, not warming; the IPCC even printed the Finn’s plot upside down to convert the fact (cooling) into the dogma (warming).

Prof. McCarthy is, of course, part of the IPCC that has suppressed dissenting viewpoints based on solid climate science. His claim to support by “peer review” is nonsense; he has helped corrupt the peer review process. We now have documentary evidence that Jones, Mann, and the other IPCC scientists have been gaming peer review and blackballing opponents. On this point, the entire IPCC staff, including Prof. McCarthy, neither have nor deserve our trust.

We have tolerated years of the refusal of Mann and Jones to release data. Now, we learn that much of these data were discarded (one of about 4 data sets that exist), something that would in any other field of science lead to disbarment. We have been annoyed by Al Gore, who declared this science “settled”, refused to debate, and demonized skeptics (this is anti-science: debate and skepticism are the core of real science, which is never settled). The very fact that Prof. McCarthy attempts to bluff Congress by asserting the existence of fictional “overwhelming evidence” continues this anti-science activity.

All of this was known before Climategate. What was not known until now was the extent to which Jones and Mann were simply deceiving themselves (which happens often in science) or fraudently attempting to deceive others. I am not willing to crucify Jones on the word “trick”. Nor, for that matter, on the loss of primary data, keeping only “value added” data (which is hopelessly bad science, but still conceivably not fraud).

But the computer code is transparently fraudulent
. Here, one finds matrices that add unexplained numbers to recent temperatures and subtract them from older temperatures (these numbers are hard-programmed in), splining observational data to model data, and other smoking guns, all showing that they were doing what was necessary to get the answers that the IPCC wanted, not the answers that the data held. They knew what they were doing, and why they were doing it.

If, as Prof. McCarthy insists, “peer review” was functioning, and the IPCC reports are rigorously peer reviewed, why was this not caught? When placing it in context made it highly likely that this type of fraud was occurring?

The second question is: Will this revelation be enough to cause the “global warming believers” to abandon their crusade, and for people to return to sensible environmental science (water use, habitat destruction, land use, this kind of thing)? Perhaps it will.

Contrary to Prof. McCarthy’s assertion, we have not lost just one research project amid dozens of others that survive. A huge set of primary data are apparently gone. Satellite data are scarcely 40 years old. Everything is interconnected, and anchored on these few studies. Even without the corruption of the peer review process, this is as big a change as quantum mechanics was in physics a century ago.

But now we know that peer review was corrupted, and that no “consensus” exists. The “2500 scientists agree” number is fiction (God knows who they are counting, but to get to this number, they must be including referees, spouses, and pets).

The best argument now for AGW is to argue that CO2 is, after all, a greenhouse gas, its concentration is, after all, increasing, and feedbacks that regulated climate for millions of years might (we can hypothesize) be overwhelmed by human CO2 emissions. It is a hypothesis worthy of investigation, but it has little evidentiary support.

Thus, there is hope that Climategate will bring to an end the field of political climatology, and allow climatology to again become a science. That said, people intrinsically become committed to ideas. The Pope will not become a Protestant even if angel Gabriel taps him on the shoulder and asks him to. Likewise, Prof. McCarthy may claim until the day he retires that there remains “overwhelming support” for his position, even if every last piece of data supporting it is controverted. As a graduate student at Harvard, I was told that fields do not advance because people change their minds; rather, fields advance because people die.

Posted by Sean December 2, 09 11:26 PM

Wowza! I can only hope that more people in the climate field stick their heads above the parapet and tell it like it is.


Sponsored IT training links:
Guaranteed exam preparation with help of 642-975 dumps, E20-001 exam simulation and 156-215.70 practice exam!


228 thoughts on “A devastating response to “There’s nothing to see here, move along”

  1. “The letter reads “The scientific process depends on open access to methodology, data, and a rigorous peer-review process.”

    That is the point. They are non compliant with “open access and release of information”.
    There is no peer review if the studies can’t be replicated.

  2. This is the sort of stuff which damages the AGW belief far more than we (sceptics) ever could. It would be nice if other climatologists and physicists would speak up, though I personally doubt they will. He has a point that CO2 may overwhelm feedbacks, though that hasn’t happened yet, and it is indeed the warmist’s best plan for the future. Hopefully, out of this, real ‘science’ will return – where we will go back to testing and evaluating, not having a preconceived conclusion. Great damage has been done to science in the past few weeks, or rather shown to be done. Massive damage will be done if and when AGW is proved incorrect.

  3. “Thus, there is hope that Climategate will bring to an end the field of political climatology, and allow climatology to again become a science.”

    At last, a climate observation we can all agree on?

  4. more people will step up and start talking, once they feel its safe to do so… this is what politics does our days, it takes away rights pretending to guard them.
    it makes you sick thinking we are back in the dark ages when scientists were afraid for their lives… :((

  5. Now we all know that you can’t LIE to the President of the USA, he has only the ‘truth’ in his ” think tank”

    when intelligent people leave politics to idiots they reap there just rewards.

  6. Two things to look at regarding the “climategate” material. What you can prove, and what you can conclude. You can prove that some level of cheating or shading, and cherrypicking data took place with the result of the CRU conclusions being somewhat less that firm.
    You can conclude lots more. Some of the defenses of the emails remind me of Bill Clinton parsing the meaning of the word “is”. Remember, it is likely these scientists do more than sit around all day e-mailing each other. They are working hard, and working intelligently, to achieve their goals. Once you get past the idea that fairness demands geometric proofs, just take the long-range view of their activities. Why would you believe climate research done by these people is any higher level than the Piltdown Man? Maybe a greater cost to society, but not much more important. Perhaps their motives are more pure, and perhaps not.

  7. Harvard? On the way to a 2nd class university?

    What do students learn at Harvard? 2nd class science? Religion? Does anybody know? Is there a discussion among students? Do they ask questiones?

    The universities -meant to be the spearheads od our societies- are just knuckling under. No leadership in science, non!

  8. Thanks to Anthony Watts and the numerous scientists, bloggers, posters, and contributors here who have helped my understanding of where climate science is now. I am a physician by trade with a love for physics who felt for a few years conned and exploited by media and politicians on this subject. I somehow found a link to this site and am ever so grateful for getting some intelligent perspective.

    Again kudos to Mr. Watts for his work!! :)

  9. Stunning response.

    Now’s the time for other climate scientists to speak out loudly, forcefully, and often to bring this gravy train to a screeching halt!

    +++++++++++++++++

    In another area, let’s once again hear it for Anthony and the mods for an amazing job being done. According to Quantcast, the numbers for WUWT hit the second highest level on Dec 2 since this whole sleigh ride began:

    http://www.quantcast.com/profile/traffic-compare?domain0=realclimate.org&domain1=climateprogress.org&domain2=wattsupwiththat.com&domain3=climatecrisis.net&domain4=

    What’s even more amazing is the work Anthony’s also doing fixing up Steve’s CA site.

    When do y’all sleep?

    ++++++++++++++++++++++

    And finally, a couple of Academy members are calling for Al Gore’s Oscar to be rescinded (probably won’t happen, but it gives folks something to think about):

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/12/al-gore-oscar-global-warming.html

  10. The Global Warming Believers cannot and will not abandon their gospel nor their jihad for a better world. It is their religion. Their reason to wake up and get out of bed in the morning. They have surrendered themselves to those they believe are the true prophets and they have sworn themselves to be guardians of the new truth. They have abandoned science as it is traditionally known and practiced in favor of the revealed science of their new faith. Some may be deprogrammable. Most are not. They are followed by a rag tag army of semi-believers and non-believers who want to be part of the “happening”, or on the “right” (aka: winning) side of the argument. These are the people who are now listening to the ongoing argument created by Climategate and waiting for some definitive proof to sway them in a different direction. Focus on convincing the rag tag followers and you’ll win the battle for truth in science. Ain’t life a beach?

  11. Unfortunately, I know what Barbara Boxer, who is my Senator, will do with this letter. It will go into the “circulation” file. She’s like the Pope: “[she] will not become a Protestant even if angel Gabriel taps [her] on the shoulder and asks [her] to.” She won’t give up her ambitions to push forward environmentalism.

  12. Unfortually, I doubt there will be any coming back to science when it comes to climate debate. It has been tainted by the disgusting virus we call politics. The majority of supporters for both sides have already closed their minds completely, reguardless of what you can show them as proof.

    Ill be the first to admit that I do it as well, everytime i read a global warming story now, I blow it off completely, or just skim it till I find something i dont like then stop reading. I think the majority of people are like me.

    As far as im concered it appears the powers that be and their backers have already decided to push ahead with it reguardless of whatever truth or lies there are with the subject. Afterall this is the perfect topic needed to finally get their feet in the door for proposing a legit world government. Who could be against clean air after all? The bonus being there is a lot of power and money in green right now.

    The only thing we can hope for is that we can fight this long enough that the powers that be dont get too often an opportunity to squander world resources on this fake emergency. The resources will be wasted, but we can decide how much.

  13. 100% right on.
    Unfortunately, the MSM is playing down all the inconveninet facts and pretty much parroting McCarthey lines.

  14. “Guest post by by John A”

    “Posted by Sean December 2, 09 11:26 PM”

    As a matter of interest, who are “John A” and “Sean”, and what are their backgrounds?

    Many thanks.

    PS: Keep up the great work, folks.

    PPS: Speaking of CO2, does anyone know why IPCC chose to use the lowest level of “pre-industrial” CO2 value (270 ppm) determined via the Pettenkofer method from about 1810 to 1959 rather than an average or more “normal” value?

    Obviously, using the lowest pre-industrial value results in current CO2 levels that support the whole AGW position.

    Thanks again.

    PWM

  15. Great post. Over here in the UK, the BBC has finally “discovered” ClimateGate.
    “News” 24 has been spinning like an Iranian centrifuge factory!
    The bike-sheds at BBC towers must be overflowing into reception as the ranks of ardent believers get wheeled on screen.
    The science is still settled, the overwhelming consensus is that children can still be frightened to death!
    Still its a start, the dam will soon succumb to the rising waters of Truth.
    As an aside, last Friday 27th Nov I googled “Google Climategate” – the quotes are necessary- and got 223 hits.
    Today, Friday 4th Dec, a week later I got 1923 hits and Delingpole of the Daily Telegraph and WUWT take up all the top spots.
    Now this looks like another Hockey Stick in the
    making to throw on the barbecue that’ll cook the Alarmists Goose!

  16. My post to this blog was moderated out – no surprise – as i pointed out a truth so damning they would not dare let the people of Boston read about it.

    Basically I called into question the intellectual integrity of both Harvard and MIT (once illustrious institutions in a bygone era).

    My point is that MIT President is on record for making alarmist statements about catestrophic climate change. Harvard also supports the CimateGate fraud.

    The way I see it, this is Intellectual Prostitution – a Faustian pact with politicians and vested interests – ‘cry wolf’ about the climate catastrophe loud enough and Academic Institutons are sure to secure bucket loads of research funding and the Leaders of these institutions get to hob knob with the Head of GE (Immelt) and even The President Obama himself will come and visit… (he visited MIT about 6 weeks ago)

    Sadly, Intellectual Prostitution is what ClimateGate is all about. Follow the money….

  17. “But the computer code is transparently fraudulent.”

    Do we know if the output of this code been published? And if so, where? If it hasn’t then it’s suspicious code, but not fraud.

  18. With the email apologists always claiming that the “primary data” still exists and that Phil and pals merely deleted their copies, I don’t have a clear picture of what they mean. Is it that the entries in logs in Nepal or Mauritania are still there at the weather station sites, or are the data all collected at national Met. offices around the world? How do all the international data find their way to Norwich? Daily? Monthly? Who audits the sites, other than Anthony’s Surfacestations project?
    How do our Canadian Data get into the big picture? I keep coming across incongruities but nobody ever replies to my inquiries.

  19. “The robust exchange of ideas in the peer-reviewed literature regarding climate science is evidence of the high degree of integrity in this process.”

    Except that the peer-review process in the climate literature has been gamed by Jones, Mann, and company, as evidenced ** many times ** in the CRU e-mails.

    BTW – do think these guys can put out a press release or write a single paper without using the word “robust”?!

  20. Excellent, concise statement by Sean, pleasant reprise from having trying to first hear and then read John Rennie’s piece of 12/3, “Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense”, at SciAm. He was once editor in chief for 15 years.
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense
    I gave up on the pod cast due to the contextual attitude they were dealing with inferior thought processes in sceptics. He did latch onto what Sean pointed out as AGW’s best argument in his first point.

  21. Any wonder Gore bailed on Copenhaggen? He, like POTUS, is a simple, uneducated mouthpiece (toastmaster) requiring groopies and cue-cards. Gore merely provides wind (hot air).

  22. Harvard and the IPCC has been infiltrated by the Union of Concerned Scientists? That explains a lot.

    > What do students learn at Harvard?

    They have a very good school of Political Science.

  23. Response from Obama !

    Google whats that ?

    Climategate whats that ?

    I got advisers that get paid billions of dollars to filter stuff like that.!!!!

  24. BBC radio two managed to have a bias discussion today about the Emails. A sceptic was given a right of reply for a couple of minuits and a climate change expert was given time to refute any aligation made throughout the whole segment of the program. The main thrust of the program was the so called trick in the Emails. One caller asked “how come tree ring temp is ok up to 1960 but suddenly because it doesent fit allowed to be adjusted”. This was but allowed to be brushed over although this surly is the whole point. When the facts don’t fit a mecanism is invented to get the required results.
    This is not science but the sort of thing kids do in lessons find the answer and work backwards.
    A couple of weeks ago on AM A sunday morning program Mr Ed Milliband was allowed to pick and chose which sientific studies were true. Climate change the science is proven, A sientific study about the future uk energy needs had embarrasing findings for him so was wrong.I read today that the over excitable school boy is running round saying Sceptic Conservitives need to keep quiert and not rock the boat in the run up to Copenhagen.What next
    make it ilegal to be a sceptic? I am sure they would like to.
    I often wonder it the climate change advocates would be quite so sure of their position if they were personaly liable for the staggering costs that the world community is being asked to provide.

  25. In 66 comments at that site I saw only one pro-AGW. And it was a typical ad-hom attack. Tide has turned on these grifters.

  26. Where is the “overwhelming” evidence? I’ve not seen it. Where is the mountain of evidence? I’ve not seen it.

    Whenever someone says there is a mountain of overwhelming evidence I ask, ok show it to me? Where is it? Please refer to the papers that support global warming alarmism? Where is the data? Where does the data come from? How was it processed? Who processed it? Is the data, all of the raw data, available to the public? What disenting papers refute the papers you mention? What counter evidence have you considered? Why did you reject it? What about the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) that shows that when the Earth warms it radiates more heat (~6X) than the so called climate models predict.

    Show me the mountain of overwhelming evidence. Don’t let anyone get away with saying there is a mountain of overwhelming evidence. Let’s see it (if we haven’t already)!

  27. Sean’s letter (with his full name) should be emailed to every member of congress.

    Boxer will just ignore it.

  28. “The majority of supporters for both sides have already closed their minds completely, reguardless of what you can show them as proof.” Sunfighter

    Why not? The boy who cried wolf falsely deserves to be ignored forever or at least greatly discounted. What he says in the future may or may not be true but why bother with him anymore?

    As for the alarmists, they know something is wrong with the world, give them credit for that. Until we fix our economic system, they will not go away.

  29. Am I the only one who seems to have noticed that the CYA crowd; led by Mrs Barbara Boxer (she worked hard to achieve that title) are hell bent on establishing that this release of files from CRU was an outside “crime”; and yet their spokesfolks all seem to add that the “criminal” has not been identified.
    If the crown jewels disappear, with no sign of forced entry; does one immediately assume that someone as yet unknown must have got into the tower somehow, as yet unknown, to remove them; or is it much more likely that someone on the inside who is thoroughly knowledgeable of what is there and exactly where, and how protected, might take advantage of that insider special knowledge, to defeat the protections systems (if any) and remove only those items of immediate value, and place them in a trash bin or laundry bag which can transport them without suspicion to a place where they can be fenced.

    Embezzlement is a whole lot easier, and safer too than (unarmed) bank robbery.

    So please Mrs Boxer; get off this silly “Criminal” kick. Was it criminal that people stole the e-mails of Alaska Governor Palin ? Howcome you didn’t get your dander up then. I don’t recall you raising an uproar over that; and that Mrs Boxer was a crime that was committed inside the United States of America.

    What is your Constitutional duty to involve your office; yes an office of The United States Senate in prosecuting an alleged criminal (unproven) activity; that took place entirely outside of any territory of the United States of America; and inside another Sovereign nation.

    Americans might call that brazen; or more likely something a lot less complimentary. In England and the UK in general, they would probably call you “cheeky”, and that label you have most decidedly earned through your hard work. So buzz off, and get back to the work that the Citizens of California chose you to take care of as an elected public servant.

  30. This is TOO funny. Within the half hour after I skipped from this post to the Boston Globe Glog, the number of comments at on that post went from 24 to 66!

    Anthony, are you trying to DDoS the Globe?

  31. From the comments: “Witchdoctors are always ready to take your chickens and dance for weather.”

    Priceless.

  32. Wow, there are some really angry people commenting on the Boston Globe’s disgraceful piece of reporting.

    The more I see and hear, the more I believe that there is a massive groundswell of ordinary people who are:

    fed up with being treated like ignoramuses by the so-called scientific elite and the politicians who were happy to jump on their bandwagon

    offended to be called deniers, denialists and sceptics, when all they were seeking was a balanced, unspun answer rather than can

    wary of anyone who says “trust me, I know better than you”

    suspicious of those who claim the highest of motives but use the basest of language and actions against their fellow man (Gavin Schmidt – I mean you and your cohort especially here)

    Strikes me that there are worms turning all over the globe, and woe betide anyone who tries to bring out the whitewash brush!

  33. It’s a devastating comment which tells a lot of the mentality of the people behind the fraud. They are opportunistic ruthless cons representing not only an embarrassment to the world of science but humanity as well.

    Thanks a lot for the publishing this.

  34. The last bit of this item from RTE [ yes the story is coming to life here in Ireland at last ] should cause concern.It seems that Milliband has decided on the outcome of the investigation already or is he just hinting that he will try to bugger things up?

    “Speaking after an event at the Natural History Museum in London, British Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband said: ‘We need maximum transparency including about all the data but it’s also very, very important to say one chain of emails, potentially misrepresented, does not undo the global science.

    ‘I think we want to send a very clear message to people about that.

    ‘The science is very clear about climate change and people should be in no doubt about that.’

    Mr Miliband said he had faith in the university’s own investigation and the UN body’s inquiry was also welcome.

    He added: ‘There will be people that want to use this to try and undermine the science and we’re not going to let them.’ ”

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1204/climate.html

  35. “Laughs more he who laughs more”. Climategate’s “deepdecline”
    will release some zipped surprises before jamboree starts.☺
    Let’s get more popcorn!

  36. Where does Anthony find the time to stay on top of all this? I know he has lots of people feeding him information, but still, it takes a lot of time to sort through it, and decide what is worth reporting. In this case, of course, the info comes from someone he knows (“John A”), but still, the volume of info that has been filtered through WUWT in recent days, and weeks, is just staggering. We owe a huge debt to Anthony (and his mods).

  37. “As a graduate student at Harvard, I was told that fields do not advance because people change their minds; rather, fields advance because people die.” Harvard, eh? Because that’s surely just another of those dogmas that could do with some critical scrutiny? Scepticism isn’t just for Christmas.

  38. Folks should forward this link and commentary to their editorial boards to show them how and why they have been and are horribly wrong in their perpetual advocacy for this fraud.

  39. Oh read this http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100018788/climategate-michael-piltdown-mann-throws-phil-jones-out-of-the-sleigh-as-panic-grows/

    “Mann, in his new role as champion of academic integrity, has told BBC Radio 4: “I can’t put myself in the mind of the person who wrote that e-mail and sent it. I in no way endorse what was in that e-mail.” (This is the classic Clinton defence: “I did not have climate collusion with that scientist… It all depends what the meaning of the word ‘trick’ is…) In case Professor Jones needs that barely coded message in plain, it deciphers as: “You’re on your own, Phil.””

  40. I hope the chances are good soon that a true insider of the team is both a) ethical and b) brave. I am guessing that the core of the team will not allow someone with both of these attributes in. I agree that someone had both qualities if the e-mails had been leaked rather than hacked. But I’m looking for someone to go completely public. I believe it will happen at some point.

    I believe that the human spirit yearns to be both ethical and brave although fear and greed are strong motivators as well. Let’s hope that ethical and brave prevail soon.

  41. Re- Sunfighter (07:50:36) :
    “Unfortually, I doubt there will be any coming back to science when it comes to climate debate.”

    Agree, but on a much larger scale: Unfortually, I doubt there will be any coming back to science; every field and specialty has been tainted. Scientists throughout the world will be suffering the consequences of Climategate for years to come. The people, we the great unread and unwashed majority, tend to gulmp “science” into one pot and not distinguish between specialties or specialists. Every scientist worth the title has been slandered in this fiasco. Believe it of not!

  42. Hey, I’ve got a joke……

    Question: How many trees does it take to make a Hockey stick.?

    Answer: Twelve apparently;-)

  43. Realclimate is still spinning, and today attacked Lindzen’s WSJ op-ed. The theme was that “denialists” claim the ‘science is settled’ as part of their attack. The underlying tone of it is that the claim is a way to make it appear relevant in the typical denier’s pointy head by framing everything as a conspiracy. Apparently deniers aren’t overly bright and have to have a bogeyman.

    What I wrote (that won’t get posted) —

    “Nice strawman you have here.

    ‘Settled science’ is a PR matter and the primary cheerleader is Al “the debate is over” Gore.

    Nobody assumes SCIENTISTS say this; even the very notion is anti-science.

    Lindzen is correct to point out that science is unsettled. He’s making the case against Gore and public perception and politics. And he’s correct to phrase it as he does given that climate change is felt to be a club politicians will wield to enforce possibly unecessary (and unwanted) change. If not for the political overtones of all of this, climate would merely be an academic endeavour and your blog traffic would be somewhere near zero. Lindzen is addressing the politics, and you misinterpreted.”

    Sheesh. Is Gavin off his meds?

    Irony Alert — realclimate invents and constructs a strawman to prove that deniers construct strawmen. Film at 11.

  44. Sean deserves large congratulations for a very high quality piece of writing. It is indeed a devastating critique. All the more so, since a great deal of it has been obvious long before Climategate became an issue. It has the additional virtue of accomplishing its task without resorting to the jargon and kant that make so much of the discussion of science so impenetrable to the uninitiated. This makes it a good candidate for forwarding to your elected representatives, since even their room temperature IQs should be able to comprehend its essential truths.

  45. Sunfighter (07:50:36) :

    Unfortually, I doubt there will be any coming back to science when it comes to climate debate. It has been tainted by the disgusting virus we call politics. The majority of supporters for both sides have already closed their minds completely, reguardless of what you can show them as proof.

    You are WRONG, release the data and method, have it tested by honest scientists and let the cards fall where they may. If they show AGW so be it, if they don`t no more billions will be wasted.

  46. I was beginning to despair that the shabby scam which has been inflicted upon the world for so long would not be revealed until it was too late. We have the whistleblower at CRU to thank for his courage. I hope that, in due course it will be recognised now that the whole edifice is collapsing, though I suspect those who attend the Copenhagen jamboree, will try and pretend that nothing has happened.

  47. Excellent post. There needs to be more climateologists willing to stand up and call a spade a spade.

  48. Two more (from postings at BBC online)
    Manipulating data to suit political requirements? My reaction: “suprise suprise”.
    It’s called “managing expectation”, ie: telling the paymasters what they want to hear in order to keep gettng paid. I’m a scientist and that is basically what my job has become.
    Christopher Styles, York, United Kingdom

    Significantly reduce the human population over the following decades and we could all live well without killing the planet or the other species that live on it.
    Sid, Exeter

  49. A great article.
    BTW I am just so grateful to this site and to the mysterious benefactor (he should get the Nobel if he ever dares “come out”) who leaked the emails in the first place.
    Cracks are seriously beginning to show, even the BBC (UK) is starting to mention that “some people do not believe humans are responsible for climate change” in their, still admittedly pro AGW, pieces but this is a major change. Hitherto they have never mentioned that opposition to the AGW theory actually exsists!
    Well done WUWT and keep up the good work.

  50. .Hansford (08:49:57) :

    Question: How many trees does it take to make a Hockey stick.?
    Answer: None, two lines of coding will do.

  51. Sean’s response it just a beautiful piece of work! It encapsulates just about everything I think I know about the failed case for AGW.

    Thank you!

    CH

  52. Using their own numbers 2,500 scientists believe in Global Warming.
    But on the other hand 31,000 scientists signed a petition saying they don’t.
    So there may be a Consensus, just not the one you were told.

  53. At top levels. in many areas of research most universities have been tainted by grant monies. The Ivy League leads the way. MIT is every bit as guilty as Harvard as Stanford as ….. down the line of both public and private institutes. (It goes without saying there is honest research taking place, too. — that is how the tainted is hidden.) This agenda driven fake science, and it is not just in climate research, incrementally deconstructs scientific principles and is never undertaken in the best interest of the masses. It is only religion with the many who believe because they have been purposefully misinformed. Those that misinform are doing so for far different reasons and know exactly what their endgame is.
    When will we get more creative with the naming of these scandals — just having the overused “gate” dredged up again already lessens the impact of the charges. The media could easily discover Climategate and then discredit it to the full satisfaction of the average viewer. They have used this technique many times. A topic is brought to everyone’s attention with continual clamor, the facts manipulated and massaged, and finally it’s given a psychological burial and forgotten. I, as most, have fallen for that convincing procedure many times in the past.

  54. pwl (08:16:27) : How do you explain the following?:(from Climate Audit Mirror site)

    Phil Jones, Nov 1999

    I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

  55. Profesor Watson on radio4 right now on ‘pm’. Coming out fighting.Saying sceptics are beyong convincing, – they have a fixed mindset. Saying it’s a character assasination of the ‘scientists’. BBC gave him 5 minutes without an opposing view. Keep telling everyone you know the facts.

  56. Sean’s comment should be posted in blogs and newspapers around the world. Incredibly clear and devastating. It should be read aloud at the Hopenchangin’ Summit with a request that the esteemed members respond honestly and intelligently to it. I’d very much like to see what a vigorous response to Sean’s comment would amount to.

    Thank you Sean, and of course Anthony Watts.

  57. This would be a good article if the author had avoided admitting that he has prejudices. Admitting you have prejudices can undermine other things you say.

    “As the believers know but, like religious faithful, every wrong prediction (IPCC underestimated some trends) is claimed to justify even greater alarm (not that the models are poor approximations for reality); the underpredictions (where are the storms? Why “hide the decline”?) are ignored or hidden.”

  58. At top levels. in many areas of research, most universities have been tainted by grant monies. The Ivy League leads the way. MIT is every bit as guilty as Harvard as Stanford as ….. down the line of both public and private institutions.

    No more time to proofread. Sorry for the gaffes.

  59. I also would like to know who Sean is. His writing style makes him sound legit. I occasionally leave comments (benign) without revealing my name — so I understand that. I am a physics professor, not involved in climate research, and have followed WUWT and other sites for the past 1.5 years. I signed the Oregon petition back in the 90’s without realizing my name would be published on the internet as a signer. In the last year, I have received some flack about it from my colleagues and others at my university (including professors in geology, chemistry) who noticed my name there. They use the ‘authority’ argument a lot. The immediate instinct of scientists is to trust other scientists outside their field who are mainstream and knowledgeable. Frankly, this attitude almost always works for the best, and so you have to wonder when you go against the grain. But I refuse to remove my name from the petition as long as I am unable convinced that global warming is a problem.

    I can say by watching progress in my own field of laser physics, that there arise fashions and trends in science that tend to self perpetuate for a time. My impression is that the present field of climate science in large part was developed in response to the global-warming hypothesis. This means that young scientists trained in this field generally need to accept the premise before they can even start. Otherwise, they have no access to a graduate research stipend nor an advisor (with a few exceptions). This is a strong feedback mechanism that seems to have passed a tipping point years ago. I have confidence in science in the long run, however, that a correct understanding will be reached. This is because scientists in general enjoy proving something previously accepted to be wrong. In any case, as the climate record unfolds in the coming years, the answer will become clear — whatever that outcome. The world is doing the experiment now.

  60. “The scientific process depends on open access to methodology, data, and a rigorous peer-review process.”

    I have no idea how the esteemed Prof can make this statement and imply that nothing of the sort wnet on with Jones, Mann, et al clearly stating they withheld data, methodology, and peer review from those wishing to check thier work. It’s astounding.

    Someone needs to point out to Sen Boxer that the emperor has no clothes. Not that she’d listen

  61. The “eight steps” after people get caught:

    1. Denial
    2. Profession of innocence
    3. Admission of “possible wrongdoing”
    4. Shift of blame
    5. Rationalize the behavior
    6. Ask for understanding
    7. Beg forgiveness
    8. Write a book about it

  62. I love the term “political climatology”. I suppose it’s taught in some of our more “elite” universities.

  63. Slightly OT but worth considering is the story of Captain Robert Fizroy, who was Captain of HMS Beagle when it took Charles Darwin on his famous expedition to Cape Horn and The Galapagos.

    Fitzroy eventually created The Met Office. As a Cartographic Land Surveyor for over 50 years, I can attest to his outstanding abilities as a navigator and cartographer. HMS Beagle did much more than take Darwin to look at finches.

    Fitzroy mapped most of Cape Horn, Tierra Del Fuego, Magellan Straits etc. Robert Fitzroy was a much more interesting character than Darwin. He was precise in every detail and meticulous with his records.

    I would argue therefore, that his Met Office today would have continued with his standards of excellence, wouldn’t they? Surely they wouldn’t have given all their raw data to these ecowarriors at UEA. The Met Office must still have it. Needs an FOI request from someone who knows what to do with it.

    If you are still interested in Fitzroy try this or the US equivalent:-

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Evolutions-Captain-Tragic-FitzRoy-Charles/dp/1861974515

    BTW HE committed suicide, when they wouldn’t publish his weather forecasts.

    We only need resignations.

  64. Re Anthony’s headline: “A devastating response” …

    The jury is still out, IMO, on who or what will be devastated by the indisputable persuasiveness of the skeptic argument. I see no compelling evidence (yet) that the firestorm ignited IN the blogosphere by Climategate has spread to any important precincts BEYOND it.

  65. Thanks you,
    I couldn’t have said it better. So I sent a copy of this article to my senators and congressmen.
    R

  66. The Union of Concerned Scientists has been trying to blame “deniers” on Big Oil backed groups for years. Again, political agendas and science mixing.

  67. Some of these folks wouldn’t pay attention if the naked emperor were dancing a jig in their office. All the same, I am enjoying the show!

  68. Milliband on sky news was spouting his settled science nonsense ans was interrupted by breaking news ….. Beckham had arrived for the world cup draw. They still don’t get it

  69. The letter reads “The scientific process depends on open access to methodology, data, and a rigorous peer-review process.”

    Absolutely the point. since this is proven to be lacking the hypothesis is unsupported. In other words catastrophic climate change due to human activity is NOT supported by science.

  70. Sean, magnificent.

    Re: this section of your essay:
    “But the computer code is transparently fraudulent. Here, one finds matrices that add unexplained numbers to recent temperatures and subtract them from older temperatures (these numbers are hard-programmed in), splining observational data to model data, and other smoking guns, all showing that they were doing what was necessary to get the answers that the IPCC wanted, not the answers that the data held. They knew what they were doing, and why they were doing it”

    McCarthy is channeling Winston Churchill (tongue-in-cheek):

    “I gather, young man, that you wish to be a Member of Parliament. The first lesson that you must learn is, when I call for statistics about the rate of infant mortality, what I want is proof that fewer babies died when I was Prime Minister than when anyone else was Prime Minister. That is a political statistic.”
    —Winston Churchill (1874–1965)

  71. Reading the comments on the Boston article, it’s becoming clear to me that this is much, much bigger than the climate change issue. The peasants are revolting against their intellectual “betters”. Not only is the UEA risking credibility over this, but every time someone like this opens his mouth, he risks taking some of Harvard’s credibility down with him.

    Meanwhile, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas are having difficulty getting their message out, even though their message would help Harvard’s credibility. It’s a sign of our times when this many people are this skeptical of the academic excellence of Harvard. I believe that this is without precedent. First the economic geniuses there blow it horrendously, and now this.

    This is going to leave a mark.

  72. We are making noise on this site, and the “warmists” are making much more noise on the MSM. We will lose unless we go after the money sources. I see slick TV programs and former prestigious magazines doing fantastic spreads promoting the GW propaganda. My daughters and granddaughters haven’t even heard of “Claimategate”. They get National Geographic. Who are the organizations funding these people? Who are the people in these organizations? Who are the congressmen voting for funding? We need to get the funding stopped.

    If anyone has access to the addresses, please publish them so we can send them a barrage of emails.
    Dan

  73. Jeremy (07:57:47) : Richard Lindzen is at MIT and one of the most vocal opponents of AGW. On the other hand we there is John Holdren, Obama’s climate czar and eco-catastophist extrodinare, who was a department chairman at Harvard.

  74. Such a good letter. It was a pleasure to read.

    About CO2. I thought that plants struggle to survive below 200 ppm. How was it that plants survived in an atmosphere with only 170ppm? Somebody ought to explain CO2, its properties and its importance to life. In the good old days it would be David Bellamy on the BBC. No more.

    If there is a Lord God Almighty up there he must be getting pretty fed up with the level of gratitude down here towards such a beautifully designed gas, which gave us life, gives us food, and keeps us warm. If I were He I would plunge the whole world into an Ice Age.

  75. …fields do not advance because people change their minds; rather, fields advance because people die.

    Great quote!

  76. A concise and powerful statement.

    But it is testament to the power of “blackballing” in scientific circles that Sean chose to make his statement anonymously.

    But hey, I’ll take it and hope more statements like Sean’s are made and as time moves on, more statements are made by scientists willing to identify themselves.

    Perhaps, when all is said and done, the silver lining in all this will be an improved scientific process in all fields of science that lives up to the ideals of the Scientific Method.

    Maybe, in 20 years time, the AGW hoax and its being exposed will be looked at as the turning point that ushered in a golden age of scientific advancement.

    Because Humanity needs all the help we can get.

  77. Very well written post, succinctly covering all the salient points re the current controversy. I agree that it should be disseminated far and wide.

    While Sean writes so elegantly, decimating the alarmists positions with devastatingly destructive volleys of facts after facts, this is the best the BBC can come up with:

    Phil Jones’ buddy (Professor Andrew Watson) has come out and said Phil’s OK and it’s all just being exploited by those nasty “skeptics”.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8396035.stm

    “There was no evidence of attempting to mislead people, ”

    “Despite the best efforts of the sceptics, there is no instance in these e-mails that anyone has found so far – and there are millions of people looking – that suggests the scientists manipulated their fundamental data.”

    “The climate sceptics would have us believe the e-mails invalidate the CRU data set, but they don’t.”

    “They would have us believe that the warming that has occurred during the 20th Century is a construct entirely in the minds of a few climate scientists.”

    “But this point of view surely has some difficulty in explaining why Arctic sea ice is declining so rapidly, mountain glaciers around the world are retreating so rapidly, and Spring is coming much earlier now than it did 50 years ago.”

    I mean this (a link to this story, with the text “Expert slams ‘tabloid’ climate e-mail row”) is what the BBC is putting on it’s front page right now, in the ‘other top stories’ section. All of this must be what Orwell called Newspeak.

    Really, it’s getting like they’re two different worlds – the MSM and the blogoshere/alternative media. I have thought for some time before now that if people only get to know what is happening in the world through the mainstream media, they they will have no clue what is happening in the real world. The MSM is DESPERATELY trying to keep the lid on this CRU scandal just now. Because of the likes of this site and others, it having to go into a bit of PR overdrive.

  78. The head of the UN’s climate science body says claims that UK scientists manipulated data on global warming should be investigated.

    Dr Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said the matter could not be swept “under the carpet”.

    I guess you can’t subvert the investigation from the outside.

  79. This is perhaps the best account of the story that I’ve yet seen. Concise, focussed, devastating, as Tim Heyes says.

    I’m putting it in a high position on our website, just titled ClimateGate

    Thank you JohnA, and all who are working overtime on this right now.

    “When thy song is shield and mirror
    To the fair snake-curl-ed Pain,
    Where thou dar’st affront her terror
    That on her thou may’st attain
    Persean conquest
    Seek no more, ah seek no more,
    Pass the gates of Luthany,
    Tread the region Elenore”

  80. I can’t help but wonder if the people like the Nature editors, North etc. who have gone public with some version of the same orchestrated spin “there’s nothing to see here, move on” meme, if they were investigated how many of them would be linked to Jones, Mann et all manipulations? I bet a lot.

  81. “dbleader61 (09:32:22) :

    21st Century McCarthyism….we all know how well the 20th century version served us.”

    So what do you call a witch hunt that ACTULLY finds witches?

  82. To sum up, the folks at CRU, etc. were the INQUISITORS OF SCIENCE, and they TORTURED THE DATA UNTIL IT CONFESSED:

    “…the computer code is transparently fraudulent. …matrices that add unexplained numbers to recent temperatures and subtract them from older temperatures (these numbers are hard-programmed in), splining observational data to model data, and other smoking guns, all showing that they were doing what was necessary to get the answers that the IPCC wanted, not the answers that the data held. They knew what they were doing, and why they were doing it.”

  83. James Corbett interviewed Lord Monckton on Climategate update: Report filed with UK Information Commissioner Prof. Fred Singer and Lord Monckton filed a criminal complaint against Prof. Phil Jones and CRU for breaching the UK’s Freedom of Information Act 2000.

    Prof Jones . . .said destroy the data. That is a criminal offense. We have reported Prof. Jones, and the University and the Freedom of Information officer there and the Research Unit to the Information Commissioner, and we have asked him to investigate and prosecute those responsible…

    At Science and Public Policy, Lord Monckton prepared a 42 page report: Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!

    See also: Viscount Monckton on Climategate: ‘They Are Criminals’

    Corbett interviews Dr. Tim Bull on: Climategate The Backstory who explains the problem of scientists “cooking the books”.

  84. Yeah I love how they always fall back on: “Your nothing but a shill for Big Oil”

    Well looky here: The Scientists from the CRU was hitting up Shell for money.
    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=171&filename=962818260.txt

    But wait that is not all!

    lets take a look at who else they were looking to for money. Oh this is horrible, it just can’t be, they wouldn’t. They were looking to not only BP but, but EXXON in its Esso incarnation.

    Mr Keith Taylor, Chairman and CEO of Esso UK (John Shepherd]
    Mr Paul Rutter, BP Amoco [via Terry Lazenby, UMIST]
    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=156&filename=947541692.txt

    Now who is the shill for Big Oil again?

  85. b.poli (07:44:33) :

    What do students learn at Harvard? 2nd class science? Religion? Does anybody know? Is there a discussion among students? Do they ask questiones?

    I don’t know, but I would bet they learn to spellthe word “questions” ….


  86. Back2Bat (08:22:29) :


    As for the alarmists, they know something is wrong with the world, give them credit for that. Until we fix our economic system, they will not go away.


    And you and Luap Nor propose going back on the GOLD standard?

    From an interview with Thomas Sowell

    Q: During his campaign for the presidency, Ron Paul has talked a great deal about monetary policy and getting off of the gold standard. He blames that for a wide variety of economic ills. Talk to us a little bit about that. If we went back on the gold standard tomorrow, what would that do for us or do to us? What would be the pluses and minuses of that?

    A: Oh, I guess the pluses would be that you would limit the extent to which politicians could play around with the money.

    But, I think that’s not really at the root of the problem because the Great Depression got started while we were still on the Gold Standard.

    That doesn’t save you from foolish government policies and I think foolish government policies were the real problem that caused us to get into the Great Depression and to take a whole decade to get out of it.

    .
    .

  87. Sorry about this but Whats up with Google?

    If you type climate Autosuggestion gives you climate gate. ie two words the result 10.5 million hits

    Just follow through with climategate 29.9 million

    Has climategate morphed into Googlegate?

    We need a Googlegate meter?

  88. Formatting ills, previous post …


    Back2Bat (08:22:29) :


    As for the alarmists, they know something is wrong with the world, give them credit for that. Until we fix our economic system, they will not go away.

    And you and Luap Nor propose going back on the GOLD standard?

    From an interview with Thomas Sowell

    Q: During his campaign for the presidency, Ron Paul has talked a great deal about monetary policy and getting off of the gold standard. He blames that for a wide variety of economic ills. Talk to us a little bit about that. If we went back on the gold standard tomorrow, what would that do for us or do to us? What would be the pluses and minuses of that?

    A: Oh, I guess the pluses would be that you would limit the extent to which politicians could play around with the money.

    But, I think that’s not really at the root of the problem because the Great Depression got started while we were still on the Gold Standard.

    That doesn’t save you from foolish government policies and I think foolish government policies were the real problem that caused us to get into the Great Depression and to take a whole decade to get out of it.

    .
    .

  89. I could almost side with the deniers except that empirical evidence suggests human activity does affect the environment.

    A prime example is when they shut down a coal-fired power plant – average rainfall decreases by an inch and crop yields drop 10% around the area.

    When one looks at the climate change data, there is a correlation to passage of the various ‘clean air acts’ where sun reflecting, hence cooling, particulate was scubbed from the flue gas and a purer form of CO2 was released into the environment. What the clean air acts did was to upset the balance of combustion products that normally occurred throughout the millenia and replace it with an unbalanced charge of CO2 that likely could be the cause of warming we witnessed in the late 70’s til now. (CO2 is reported to help trap heat or at least cause wilder temperature swings)

    A suggested cure was put fly ash back into the upper reaches of the atmosphere to help keep the sun’s rays out.

    While this was not done experimentally, China’s rapid growth in the past few years appears to have done industrially with their coal fired power plants. And we are now witnessing a cooling trend that seems to comport with the ‘clean air act’ as predicate to global warming theory.

    In other words, yes we have man-made global warming, courtesy of the environmentalist’s clean air acts.

  90. As usual, excellent information here and I always enjoy reading everybody’s comments. There are so many writting here that put their ‘thinking caps’ on before they put their hands on the keyboard. Too bad the warmists can’t do that as well.

    As someone above has said, even if AGW is true, I’d really like somebody to prove it without lies, distortions and the tainting of the scientific process by greed.

    As said by many here…. Awesome work by Anthony and his helpers.

  91. And I assure you, Boxer will buy every last syllable of what McCarthy said hook, line & sinker, without so much as a single thought.
    A quick look at her legislation efforts reveals that McCarthy told her exactly what she wanted to hear.

  92. Doug (08:43:43) :

    Somebody send this to Barbara Boxer and the rest of congress.

    Before sending it to Boxer, someone will have to put it in audio format. It has never been established that she can read.


  93. JeffK (10:56:59) :

    I could almost side with the deniers except that empirical evidence suggests human activity does affect the environment.

    A prime example is when they shut down a coal-fired power plant – average rainfall decreases by an inch and crop yields drop 10% around the area.

    Got a cite for that assertion?

    I think some of us would love to see the supporting data …

    ANd since when has ‘requesting to see the data’ (show me your homework before we spend TRILLIONS of our hard-earned dollars and pounds) made some of us so-called ‘deniers’?

    BIG disconnect my man.
    .
    .

  94. RE: #1’s “Harvard, because not everyone is smart enough to get into MIT.”

    “MIT… because not everyone can go to to Caltech”

    (You can get the shirt at the Caltech bookstore)

  95. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/simonheffer/6729062/Forget-climate-change—save-the-planet-from-the-thermomaniacs.html

    Forget climate change – save the planet from the thermomaniacs
    At last people are telling David Cameron that his bunny-hugging has the potential to cause extreme economic and political damage, writes Simon Heffer. Daily Telegraph, December 4th

    By Simon Heffer
    Published: 5:54PM GMT 04 Dec 2009

    Comments 3 | Comment on this article
    The voice of reason
    The voice of reason

    Although I risk immediately being branded mentally defective for saying so, I am not convinced by the notion of man-made global warming. My lack of conviction, I would be the first to admit, is based on nothing resembling great scientific understanding: I have not so much as an O-level in physics or chemistry. All I do know is this: that the planet has heated up and cooled down at various points in its history without any help from factories, lorries or a beef-farming industry. Other planets have done, and continue to do, the same: I am still waiting for an answer to John Redwood’s excellent point that the surface temperature of Mars has risen over the past few decades “and they are still looking for the 4x4s that did it”. I therefore remain, in the phrase of Sir Antony Jay, the creator of Yes Minister, a firm thermosceptic.

    Various other factors have contributed to an acceleration of my thermoscepticism. There was Lord Lawson’s detailed and challenging riposte to the Stern report. There is Christopher Booker’s superb recent book, The Real Global Warming Disaster, which I recommend that you all read. There is the hectoring tone of the BBC on the question, where any contributor to any programme who appears to be a thermo-denier is treated with incredulity and astonishment.

    Related Articles

    *
    Money alone won’t get us better teachers

    Also, thermomania has become the latest rallying point for the Leftist rent-a-mob, which finds it a suitable focus for its hatred of capitalism and the established order. That so many respectable people feel happy getting into bed with international anarchy would be funny were it not so threatening to our futures.

    The latest blow to the thermomaniacs is the leak of emails from the University of East Anglia which suggest a complete unwillingness to engage with the opposite point of view. This was rather how the church used to behave before Martin Luther, and it enforced its will by torture and burnings at the stake. With those sanctions not currently available, the thermomaniacs prefer simply to pretend that the argument has only one side.

    That argument – well, their argument – seems also to have reached ludicrous levels. We are told to stop eating beef because eructating bovines are also damaging the planet. This is an object lesson in the madness of these people. Not only is there no proof that every time a cow passes wind a flower dies, but such absurd claims are made with an utter disregard for the economy of large parts of the world (mainly the Third World) that depend on such farming. Mind you, the only time I ever attended a Green Party conference, 20 years ago, I heard a woman tell the assembly (to their agreement) that the population of this country would have to be halved to 30 million; though she failed to explain how this would be achieved.

    Nutters, anarchists, anti-capitalists, fanatics, absolutists: why are these people taken seriously? Three cheers for the Australians, who this week have started to rise up against this indoctrination and lunacy. Three cheers for David Davis and the Tories who think like him, who are at last telling Dave that this particular bit of grandstanding and bunny-hugging has the potential to cause the most extreme economic and political damage. At last, there is recognition not just that there are two sides to every story, but that when politicians conspire to limit argument, it is always an attack on the public interest.

    So if, next week, the Copenhagen summit passes from fraudulence to complete collapse, and misery and panic break out, no one should feel it is the end of the world – yet.

  96. Sean, whoever you are, thank-you for the reasoned and rational response. I commend your courage and professionalism to speak out against the warped methods used to prove AGW. The scientists skeptical of AGW have generally been polite, data-based and respectful while on the pro-AGW side the retorts are often riddled with attacks on the person and disparagment of their work.

    I look forward to other science professionals speaking out.

  97. You see the power of a counterpunch! (comment #13.)

    (So let’s be careful not to open our side to one.)

    durox (07:39:37) :

    more people will step up and start talking, once they feel its safe to do so…

    Give it another month.

    Mod: There’s a typo (should be fixed) in the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph. Change “to” to “do” in:
    “We now know that the models on which the IPCC alarms are based to not do clouds, …”

  98. Claude Harvey (09:19:29): Sean’s response it just a beautiful piece of work! It encapsulates just about everything I think I know about the failed case for AGW.

    I sincerely support this point of view. Still, the AGW supporters would respond that the 10 warmest years since 1850 was all recorded after 1997. The trivial response to that objection is, OBVIOUSLY, it takes time to change the temperature of the oceans, the thermal mass of the oceans is huge!

  99. He has a point that CO2 may overwhelm feedbacks, though that hasn’t happened yet…

    Why didn’t water vapor do it? All I found in the TAR was that water vapor ~ “is not discussed” as a green house gas. Or why would CO2 make water vapor do something it couldn’t do before?

    Negative feedbacks.

  100. Was this prof. McCarthy the model for the emperor in the IPCC cartoon? He’s got the nose-in-the-air attitude down pat. (I wish that cartoon could get posted at the head of this thread.)
    ========

    Here is an important extract from one of the comments above. It also should be given wide circulation, because it undermines the alarmists’ strongest point, The Scientific Consensus. (A similar undermining was performed by a recent comment that argued that the field of climate science tends to disproportionately attract environmental activists):

    peat (09:31:04) :

    “My colleagues … use the ‘authority’ argument a lot. The immediate instinct of scientists is to trust other scientists outside their field who are mainstream and knowledgeable. …

    “I can say by watching progress in my own field of laser physics, that there arise fashions and trends in science that tend to self perpetuate for a time. My impression is that the present field of climate science in large part was developed in response to the global-warming hypothesis. This means that young scientists trained in this field generally need to accept the premise before they can even start. Otherwise, they have no access to a graduate research stipend nor an adviser (with a few exceptions). This is a strong feedback mechanism that seems to have passed a tipping point years ago.”

  101. Alba (09:27:20) :

    This would be a good article if the author had avoided admitting that he has prejudices. Admitting you have prejudices can undermine other things you say.
    ——

    “As the believers know but, like religious faithful, every wrong prediction (IPCC underestimated some trends) is claimed to justify even greater alarm …”
    ========

    Sean was alluding to a limited subset of believers, members of a tiny millennial / doomsday cult, who were described in the book, When Prophecy Fails.

  102. Linda (09:43:51) :

    I suggest we refer to our Climategate whistle blower as ‘Deep Temp’…

    Or Disstempered.

  103. Wondering Aloud (10:11:09) :

    The letter reads “The scientific process depends on open access to methodology, data, and a rigorous peer-review process.”

    Absolutely the point. since this is proven to be lacking the hypothesis is unsupported. In other words catastrophic climate change due to human activity is NOT supported by science.

    That’s counterpunching!

  104. Anthony, the following post by Q at #40 is as pertinent as that from Sean.

    You the environmentalists, you the activists, you the campaigners.
    You who have watched with growing concern the ways in which the world around us has been ravaged in the pursuit of the almighty dollar.
    You who are concerned with the state of the planet that we are leaving for our children and our grandchildren and those generations yet unborn.
    This is not a message of divisiveness, but cooperation.
    This is a message of hope and empowerment, but it requires us to look at a hard and uncomfortable truth:
    Your movement has been usurped by the very same financial interests you thought you were fighting against.
    You have suspected as much for years.
    You watched at first with hope and excitement as your movement, your cause, your message began to spread, as it was taken up by the media and given attention, as conferences were organized and as the ideas you had struggled so long and hard to be heard were talked about nationally. Then internationally.
    You watched with growing unease as the message was simplified. First it became a slogan. Then it became a brand. Soon it was nothing more than a label and it became attached to products. The ideas you had once fought for were now being sold back to you. For profit.
    You watched with growing unease as the message became parroted, not argued, worn like a fashion rather than something that came from the conviction of understanding.
    You disagreed when the slogans–and then the science–were dumbed down. When carbon dioxide became the focus and CO2 was taken up as a political cause. Soon it was the only cause.
    You knew that Al Gore was not a scientist, that his evidence was factually incorrect, that the movement was being taken over by a cause that was not your own, one that relied on beliefs you did not share to propose a solution you did not want. It began to reach a breaking point when you saw that the solutions being proposed were not solutions at all, when they began to propose new taxes and new markets that would only serve to line their own pockets.
    You knew something was wrong when you saw them argue for a cap-and-trade scheme proposed by Ken Lay, when you saw Goldman Sachs position itself to ride the carbon trading bubble, when the whole thrust of the movement became ways to make money or spend money or raise money from this panic.
    Your movement had been hijacked.
    The realization came the first time you read The Club of Rome’s 1991 book, The First Global Revolution, which says:
    “In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”
    And when you looked at the Club of Rome’s elite member roster. And when you learnt about eugenics and the Rockefeller ties to the Kaiser Willhelm Institute and the practice of crypto-eugenics and the rise of overpopulation fearmongering and the call by elitist after elitist after elitist to cull the world population.
    Still, you wanted to believe that there was some basis of truth, something real and valuable in the single-minded obsession of this hijacked environmental movement with manmade global warming.
    Now, in November 2009, the last traces of doubt have been removed.
    Last week, an insider leaked internal documents and emails from the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University and exposed the lies, manipulation and fraud behind the studies that supposedly show 0.6 degrees Celsius of warming over the last 130 years. And the hockey stick graph that supposedly shows unprecedented warming in our times. And the alarmist warning of impending climate disaster.
    We now know that these scientists wrote programming notes in the source code of their own climate models admitting that results were being manually adjusted.
    We now know that values were being adjusted to conform to scientists’ wishes, not reality.
    We now know that the peer review process itself was being perverted to exclude those scientists whose work criticized their findings.
    We now know that these scientists privately expressed doubts about the science that they publicly claimed to be settled.
    We now know, in short, that they were lying.
    It is unknown as yet what the fallout will be from all of this, but it is evident that the fallout will be substantial.
    With this crisis, however, comes an opportunity. An opportunity to recapture the movement that the financiers have stolen from the people.
    Together, we can demand a full and independent investigation into all of the researchers whose work was implicated in the CRU affair.
    We can demand a full re-evaluation of all those studies whose conclusions have been thrown into question by these revelations, and all of the public policy that has been based on those studies.
    We can establish new standards of transparency for scientists whose work is taxpayer funded and/or whose work effects public policy, so that everyone has full and equal access to the data used to calculate results and all of the source code used in all of the programs used to model that data.
    In other words, we can reaffirm that no cause is worth supporting that requires deception for its propagation.
    Even more importantly, we can take back the environmental movement.
    We can begin to concentrate on the serious questions that need to be asked about the genetic engineering technology whereby hybrid organisms and new, never-before-seen proteins that are being released into the biosphere in a giant, uncontrolled experiment that threatens the very genome of life on this planet.
    We can look into the environmental causes of the explosion in cancer and the staggering drops in fertility over the last 50 years, including the BPA in our plastics and the anti-androgens in the water.
    We can examine regulatory agencies that are controlled by the very corporations they are supposedly watching over.
    We can begin focusing on depleted uranium and the dumping of toxic waste into the rivers and all of the issues that we once knew were part of the mandate of the real environmental movement.
    Or we can, as some have, descend into petty partisan politics. We can decide that lies are OK if they support ‘our’ side. We can defend the reprehensible actions of the CRU researchers and rally around the green flag that has long since been captured by the enemy.
    It is a simple decision to make, but one that we must make quickly, before the argument can be spun away and environmentalism can go back to business as usual.
    We are at a crossroads of history. And make no mistake, history will be the final judge of our actions. So I leave you today with a simple question: Which side of history do you want to be on?
    Posted by Q December 3, 09 11:32 PM

  105. @ Roger Knights (12:03:21)

    These incoming graduate students face the tyranny of research funding instead of the liberty of free and open inquiry. The tyranny is overt and completely offensive to the scientific process.

    But Popper would say that this area of climate research is a “pseudoscience” and dismiss its truth-seeking value outright.

  106. That is pretty devastating.

    If Sean and his colleagues are aware that so much of this area is based on big lies (or at least errors and hype) morale must be a problem. I for one could not stay with a job or area of research I could not believe in.

    It would be really interesting to hear from Sean what he thinks the current research challenges are or should be for climate science and climate scientists – or what is left of this field. Better understanding of past and present climate sounds great, but lets hear the research goals and possible applications without the spin of climate change.

  107. _Jim (10:52:19) :

    And you and Luap Nor propose going back on the GOLD standard?

    Strawman!!! I have never supported a gold standard. Gold IS a barbaric relic. (I guess that makes central banks barbaric since they own so much of it.)

    All I seek is liberty in money creation and banking with the usual laws against fraud and insolvency. Legal tender laws would be abolished and also the FDIC. The Fed would have to compete as a genuine private entity without government privilege.

    Try again.

  108. I agree with some of what Sean wrote, but I question two things:

    1. It seems uncontroversial science that CO2 (and water vapour, methane and a few other gases) absorb longwave radiation from the earth and re-emit energy both up and down, thus having a warming effect at the earth’s surface.

    Clearly anthropogenic CO2 wasn’t a factor in any previous climate swings! And CO2 increases would naturally follow warming because the oceans outgas CO2 when they warm.

    — However, the fact that previous climate changes were not caused by CO2 doesn’t mean that the CO2 we are emitting can’t have a warming effect now.

    That also doesn’t mean CO2 is all or some of the explanation for the last century of warming. Clearly the climate is created by very complex processes, including strong positive feedbacks at times, hence the chaotic temperatures of the last 1,000,000 years.

    But you would expect CO2 to have a *first-order warming effect* on the GMST. Whether that is cancelled out by feedbacks, natural variation already in place, or will be amplified by positive feedbacks that exist – who can know.

    2. Sean also said “We have also known for years that the alleged one degree temperature rise from 1880 vanishes if sites exposed to urban heat islands are not considered.”

    UHI definitely exists. I would love to know its total effect (and have found Anthony Watts work on surface stations really excellent). But the fact that some influential climate scientists produced a dodgy paper and kept citing it doesn’t mean the earth hasn’t been warming.

    SST show a warming effect over the last century. And sea level rise shows an upward trend. Clearly there is some warming of the earth’s surface. How much is the question (as well as when and where) along with how big the error bars really are – e.g. Pielke’s work on night-time temperature measurements affected by wind speed.

    -Maybe these are minor points (and maybe I’m wrong?) for an interesting post – but in the politicization of climate science, overstating a case can simply re-affirm the other side that their points of view are correct.

  109. JT (12:13:50) : Anthony, the following post…

    I’ve captured BOTH posts here, headed up by Pallas Athene, the Statue of Liberty and Lady Justice who presides over The Old Bailey (London seat of justice).

    The eloquence of both these pieces is worthy of Churchill. And that eloquence is born in that same deep, dark place where fear, despair and depression are not unknown.

  110. b.poli (07:44:33) :

    Harvard? On the way to a 2nd class university?

    What do students learn at Harvard? 2nd class science? Religion? Does anybody know? Is there a discussion among students? Do they ask questiones?

    Reply
    I was told, with pride I might add, that Boston (HAaarvard) has the foremost Marxist Scholars in the world. They also produce “Harvard business school grads” who excel in generating high profits by cutting unnecessary costs…. Like equipment maintenance. They then move on to bigger salaries at larger companies and severe equipment malfunction plagues the factory after they leave. (personal experience at more than one plant, I dreaded seeing a Harvard grad assume a management position)

  111. Let’s see: “The best argument now for AGW is to argue that CO2 is, after all, a greenhouse gas, its concentration is, after all, increasing, and feedbacks that regulated climate for millions of years might (we can hypothesize) be overwhelmed by human CO2 emissions. It is a hypothesis worthy of investigation, but it has little evidentiary support.”

    I find the argument for CO2 to be extremely weak, vanishingly small, even virtually nonexistent. Don’t I remember WUWT commenters noting that human activity accounts for ~4% of atmospheric CO2, or ~15 ppm (using the current 387.75 ppm base)? That leaves an awful lot of CO2 that we humans can’t do anything about, doesn’t it? What about the 20% reduction that Waksman wants for the US? 2006 data (the last I’ve seen) show that the US produces ~25% of anthropogenic CO2 (~4 ppm) among the top 20 producers, with only China slightly greater. Reducing this level by 20% = a reduction of ~0.8 ppm. And this is supposed to help the climate? Get a life, AGW supporters!

  112. This is a good piece of work John A, which well illustrates just how bizarre the whole CAGW scam has become. Copenhagen is now a lame duck and will be just another Kyoto.

    @Allen (12:31:00) :
    [“@ Roger Knights (12:03:21)
    These incoming graduate students face the tyranny of research funding instead of the liberty of free and open inquiry. The tyranny is overt and completely offensive to the scientific process.”]

    “But Popper would say that this area of climate research is a “pseudoscience” and dismiss its truth-seeking value outright.”

    Reply: It’s worst than “pseudo science”, it’s exactly the same as went on in Nazi Germany and the USSR – it’s propaganda towards a specific end. It is the political manipulation of humanity and it is designed to lead to the grand goal of World Government, with Obama groomed for the presidential chair. It will be a completely unelected body, which will enslave us all under the auspices of preventing war, starvation and disease. The people behind this genuinely believe that this is the only way to prevent us all destroying ourselves.

    However, recent polls show that changes to weather patterns over the last 10 years have made a large proportion of people sceptical about AGW. The group who want to have world control know that we have to come willingly to the idea, otherwise there will be much strife, and it could cause the very thing they fear. This particular stratagem has run its course, but keep an eye out for the next one, it will be here soon.

    They know that we are many, but they are few.

  113. Alvin (10:04:55) :

    The Union of Concerned Scientists has been trying to blame “deniers” on Big Oil backed groups for years. Again, political agendas and science mixing.

    Reply:
    Exxon who often gets the blame is owned by the Rockefellers. The Rockefeller foundations (4) are founded on Standard Oil Money which in turn funds Greenpeace, Sierra Club and WWF. http://activistcash.com/foundation.cfm/did/166

    Pot meet kettle…


  114. Gail Combs (14:11:50) :

    … produce “Harvard business school grads” who excel in generating high profits by cutting unnecessary costs…. Like equipment maintenance. They then move on to bigger salaries at larger companies and severe equipment malfunction plagues the factory after they leave. (personal experience at more than one plant, I dreaded seeing a Harvard grad assume a management position)

    I would have to classify this kind of account as purely anecdotal; MUCH loose talk occurs out there ‘on the production floor’ that often has little relation to reality or facts (some more or less due to one gender specifically, but I won’t go there).

    Plant engineering weren’t summarily fired in ALL probability so the machinery critical to production in all likelihood still received periodic greasing, new sleeves and bushings as required; to meet ISO requirements (for ISO certification) certain minimums/certain practices and procedures are still required by the Quality people.

    Then there are ISO Management standards:

    ISO standards that provide requirements or give guidance on good management practice are among the best known of ISO’s offering.

    I don’t think minimizing plant maintenance is part of ISO ‘guidance’.
    .
    .
    .

  115. If anyone has access to the addresses, please publish them so we can send them a barrage of emails.
    Dan

    Reply
    Check out activist cash for a listing of foundations and who they fund such as Greenpeace, WWF, Sierra club et al
    http://activistcash.com/foundation.cfm/did/166

    Then check out
    http://www.sourcewatch.org

    The people who are really worth tracking are the financiers and bankers, Council on foreign relations, Council on Economic Development, and the IPC who wrote much of the WTO agreements http://www.publiceyeonscience.ch/images/the_wto_and_the_politics_of_gmo.doc

    Check into the list of Bilderberg participants
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bilderberg_participants

    The Club of Rome http://www.clubofrome.org/eng/useful_fact_bank/1/

    Adnan Khashoggi is a real interesting bird to look into especially when you track his friends. http://www.politicalfriendster.com/rateConnection.php?id1=174&id2=297
    http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Adnan_Khashoggi

    Adnan Khashoggi friends (this is a bit paranoid but fun) http://www.slate.com/id/2058706/
    http://brainmind.com/AmericaBetrayedRootsTerrorism.pdf

    That should get you started. Have fun

  116. I note that this site encourages the use of real names. cool. Just as soon as ‘Sean’ reveals his full and real name, his credentials, his funding, his affiliations, his publication record, his complete raw data and code [naturally], gives away his intellectual property and posts all his professional email traffic for the last decade, I will grant him some credence.

    Fair’s fair after all.

  117. I remember ISO standards, they attempt to remove all creativity. I also remember vaguely, “Total Quality Management” and a few other magic, expensive and pain in the ass bullets.

    They were a total diversion from getting the job done. Thanks for reminding me _Jim of the relief of not having to deal with that BS.

  118. @ rbateman (11:11:27) :

    And I assure you, Boxer will buy every last syllable of what McCarthy said hook, line & sinker, without so much as a single thought.
    A quick look at her legislation efforts reveals that McCarthy told her exactly what she wanted to hear.
    ————————————————————-
    Are you now, or have you ever been, a man-made global warming denier?

  119. Yes Bob W. The argument can go on for decades and maybe both sides can share data and research funds to reach a consensus. However, the US selling out to the alarmists and spending trillions upon trillions of $ to achieve a fraction of a percent decrease in CO2 is insane. The majority of the worlds population is finally going thru their own industrial revolution and they won’t be sacrificing a dime to worry about the emissions that will result from their quest to compete in the world markets. This is orders of magnitude worse than funding the inept and futile “war on drugs”

  120. As a skeptic, I agree with many of Sean’s points. However, I join many others in asking him to please provide his full name and credentials to back up his statements.

  121. Tonight on BBC News Night an adherent of the Human induced Global Warming lobby was allowed to conclude the carefully controlled time assymetrical debate in favour of the pro human induced warming participant on “Climategate” to openly denigrate with an obscenity those they describe as sceptics.
    I for one hear the marching sound of the jackboots when the BBC openly broadcasts such insults.


  122. Back2Bat (15:44:55) :

    I remember ISO standards, they attempt to remove all creativity. I also remember vaguely, “Total Quality Management” and a few other magic, expensive and pain in the ass bullets.

    They were a total diversion from getting the job done. Thanks for reminding me _Jim of the relief of not having to deal with that BS.

    Hmmm … kind of the reason we are/have had issues with –WAIT FOR IT – climate science (and their data/code)?

    Who needs coding procedures, code reviews, code check-in and check-out procedures, requirements documents, archival procedures and plans (for data, documents, and code) , etc., after all, all those traceability and accountability procedures “attempt to remove all creativity” huh?

    I suppose that’s the way Michael Mann and Phil Jones see it too.

    It’s been my experience that those who complain the loudest are USUALLY the ones that need it (the enforcement of standards, procedures, accountability) THE MOST.

    And I’m a ‘user’ of these systems, for coding, for engineering documentation purposes, etc.; I am not a QRA/Quality guy …
    .
    .

  123. “Hmmm … kind of the reason we are/have had issues with -WAIT FOR IT – climate science (and their data/code)?”_jim

    Sure! ;) Sounds like a suitable punishment to me! It will make them long for free enterprise!

    Let all government work be subject to ISO whatever!

  124. Think of Climategate as the invasion of Poland or bombing of Pearl Harbor. The new “leaders” of the Second World War for Truth in Science (or Phase Two of The Next Hundred Years War for the same) are likely to be those who have already achieved security for themselves and their families. If they do not already have –or quickly grow– backbones and come forth and enlist, the war is going to be over before it begins. The decrepit main stream media have yet to pick up the issue and actually assign real reporters (if they could find any) to the conflict. The politicians have yet to face election on the issue and thus for them it does not exist. College students have no idea what it means to challenge stupidity or where to start if they wanted to. The West has become complacent and fat and the Sun is rising in the East.

  125. “Who needs coding procedures, code reviews, code check-in and check-out procedures, requirements documents, archival procedures and plans (for data, documents, and code) , etc., after all, all those traceability and accountability procedures “attempt to remove all creativity” huh?” _jim

    I needed requirements, a preliminary design, and an interface control document and diagram. That was about it. The preliminary design was a waste of time as were the code reviews, etc. Just time wasting hoops to jump through.

    Hire good people and then trust them is the way to go. No amount of procedure can make up for talent and dedication.

  126. The Wall Street Journal published a number of the hacked e-mails, one of which was particularly damning. It was an e-mail from Tom Wigley to Phil Jones and said:

    “Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean—but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips—higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.”

    You can debate what “trick” means, and argue about what kind of decline you really meant to hide (although why any respectable scientist would want to hide any ternd is beyond me), but there is simply no way of explaining away the e-mail quoted above, in which Wigley is proposing a completely arbitrary correction value so as to massage the results so that inconvenient “blips” could be more easily explained away.


  127. Back2Bat (17:03:32) :
    I needed requirements, a preliminary design, and an interface control document and diagram. That was about it. The preliminary design was a waste of time as were the code reviews, etc. Just time wasting hoops to jump through.

    Hire good people and then trust them is the way to go. No amount of procedure can make up for talent and dedication.

    Were you isolated, living on an (a virtual) island, sure, you can ‘get away with’ coding like that. I’ve coded in that kind of a situation a number of times.

    But try:

    1) A project that has continuity spanning just under a decade,
    2) presently in Phase 4 of the product development,
    3) involving persons in two different primary countries,
    4) 3 or 4 times that number of languages in personnel involved
    6) umpteen different programmers and contract programmers over that period of time …
    7) Product involving:
    . a) infrastructure gear/transceivers (s/w and firmware from Phys (layer 1) through Layer 3)
    . b) subscriber devices/transceivers
    . c) EMS (Element Management Software) for infrastructure provision and control, supervision (alarms, etc)
    . d) subscriber database management software
    . e) Documentation, user guides, cust training docs and classes

    And maybe you still don’t get the idea of the need for some ‘formalization’ and documentation needed in the process …
    .
    .

  128. _Jim,

    Do you work with ISO or similar standards checking and application verification assessments?

    If so it would be interesting to hear of your experiences.

    It is tempting to see these quality guarantee schemes as a form of perpetual peer review for business operations but so far as I can tell from what I have seen in the past 25 years or so that may not be a wise assumption, just as ‘peer review’ may not be all that people assume.

    The observations from Gail Combs and Back2Bat have a familar ring to them.


  129. Phil Clarke (15:22:40) :

    … Just as soon as ‘Sean’ reveals … full and real name … credentials … funding … affiliations … publication record … complete raw data and code … gives away … intellectual property … posts … professional email traffic for the last decade, I will grant him some credence.

    Isn’t there a ‘secret handshake’ that works amongst the RC crowd that circumvents the need for all that?
    .
    .
    .

  130. I would say I agree that Sean should say who he is, in making these statements. On the other hand, the State of Fear that is in the Climate Science community has yet to lift, and even now, criticizing the Hockey Team will probably lead to ones own work being blocked from publication (as Eduardo Zorita expects will happen to him).

    I don’t give credence to the fact that Professor McCarthy is from Harvard and therefore he must be suspect. Harvard also has Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon, two astrophysicists who have suffered much at the hands of the blackballing Hockey Team. I do give credence to the fact that Professor McCarthy is part of a long standing activist group (UCS) whose agenda is political and not scientific.

    But Sean is correct – when the code is examined by knowledgeable people, the clear implication is clear that the resulting temperature index is the result of deliberately distorting the input data for no valid physical reason. This is ipso facto scientific fraud if there is no valid scientific reason to do it.

    There are those who still think that because Steve McIntyre possessed the data therefore he could have reproduced the HADCRU3 index, but until these hardcoded fudge factors came to light, how could anyone possibly have known?

    At the bottom of all of this, I fear for the credibility of the vast majority of scientists whose work is impugned by the machinations of Mann and Jones, and of the credibility of science itself as the best way to describe and understand the Universe. I really do fear that after this is all done, climate science will be damaged for a generation.

    The best thing would be for climate scientists to come out and speak the truth to power – that the behaviour of the Hockey Team and the connivance of the IPCC has corrupted the entire field of climate science and that until this is all worked out, very little is to be trusted if it is derived or calibrated by the HADCRU dataset.

  131. _Jim,

    Ah, I see you partly answered my previous question in a post made since my last refresh of the responses.

    As with peer review there will be places and times where the quality assessment is usefully applied and works as intended. But it seems to me that those who start the qualification process seeking to set themselves high standards often find that they create an expensvie and stiffling straitjacket for their operation and need to adjust to a more sustainable level.

    How far thisa adjsutment takes them depends on who is managing theporocesses and what their personal take on it is. Ideally you appoint someone who crosses ‘t’s and dots ‘i’s, but the chance arises that you may cripple your production. I once worked for a software development company that was an early adopter of the BSI (British Standards Institue) regime and moved on to the ISO regime early as well. We got to a point where the documentation was quite tightly controlled (but never so much that the inspectors could not find some small ‘issue’ of course) which was fine, though time consuming and therefore costly. However towards the end of that business (which may or may not have been co-incidental) things became very difficult because the product managers – being both architects of the system and managers of the programmers – were in perpetual quality assurance meetings when they undertook a large product update that happened also to coincide with the Y2K ‘event’. The overall development manager insisted on having the meetings and running them ‘by the book’. There were times when development pretty much stopped for days at a time because people were not available to answer questions.

    Later, as an independent consultant working more closely with clients on the other side of the fence, I was able to observe how larger organisations paying bigger assessment fees wrote simpler books to cover their operational matters as far as quality assurance was concerned.

    In the end you have to consider what is ‘fit for purpose’ and try to match that to the available budget and, in the case of creative matters like programming, what the employees find acceptable to work with. (Assuming you want to attract the best and retain them.)

    Even then the QA is only for the process not the ‘product’ it produces.

  132. Phil Clarke (15:22:40) and Kevin Davis (16:21:23) :

    Are you both really so gullible that you can’t see WHY Sean has refrained from providing his full name? The climate of the scientific community now (no pun intended) is such that any person who openly doubts AGW dogma could seriously threaten his career. I do not blame Sean for choosing anonymity. It is unfortunate that hostility is the response to honesty about one’s sceptical views on AGW, because a full name would indeed add more credibility to Sean’s letter, but at the same time everything he said in his letter can be confirmed as true through a bit of research.

    And to Sean — thank you, thank you, thank you! Coming from someone who is a physics and climate science graduate, you have my DEEPEST respect. Just when I was becoming extremely disillusioned with the whole field of climate science, and science in general, you and several others come along and express your disgust with the dishonesty that has occurred in this monstrous scandal. I suspect there are many other honest scientists out there who are also outraged, but know that it would be career suicide to speak about it. Still, I can’t see how it would be career suicide to at least acknowledge that what occurred was wrong and should be thoroughly and independently investigated. ALL scientists should be doing this, whether they subscribe to AGW or not. If all scientists did this, it would restore faith in the scientific process and in scientists themselves. By keeping silent, they are doing far more long-term damage to their reputations than the short-term damage that would come from speaking up.

  133. The danger of any field is that you can end up only seeing the world through the lens you are trained in. You can lose sight of the forest because you are always in the trees. You can lose perspective — and common sense. Add to this money, politics, power, and fame and the possibilities of corruption and tunnel vision are in full play.
    Sometimes submersion in a subject is just great; many breakthroughs come through this devotion. Hooray for the Aspergers type mind! But sometimes this narrow focus makes you just that, narrow minded. I look at the long term temperature record and see the MWP, the LIA and our present warming and think, “Wow, climate can really vary over a millennium.” If the MWP was truly a global phenomenon (and the evidence is pretty supportive), that would be so devastating to the alarmism. Why worry? In fact, why not realize our good fortune that an ice age is a bit further off? So, for me I cannot get the climate change alarmist drama and their demonization of C02. I am a gardening nut and love plants. I hope we will be able to live and prosper, and at the same time increase C02, have a little warmer planet, and grow healthier crops that will feed and support more people in our world.

    How this climatology student has resisted the bandwagon is a miracle.

  134. “And maybe you still don’t get the idea of the need for some ‘formalization’ and documentation needed in the process …” _Jim

    Whatever is appropriate. One size does not fit all. I suspect the huge size of government is mandating all the ISO requirements and adding enormously to expense. Thus we end up with $700 dollar hammers.

    Let the people who actually do the work design the process and the work will get done. If you only knew hope much useless hoop jumping goes on when it usually boils down to a few key dedicated personal doing the work while the paper pushers imagine they are doing it.

  135. The Boston Globe is my regional newspaper, and I cringed in shame when reading the article – until I got to the response – that cheered me up a bit!

    I think the concept of evil big business vs. ‘pure’ scientists is just so ingrained in the minds of many environmental journalists that it is near impossible for them to shift into investigative mode. Many environmental journalists don’t have scientific training, so the scientific method is just an abstract concept that ranks lower than the overall environmental cause. As a result, they don’t understand the level of outrage over the emails, and dismiss it as pre-Copenhagen denier noise.

    In terms of patching up the scientific process, one aspect I haven’t heard too much about is the history behind all the GW position statements from the various professional societies. I would venture a guess that many of them were contacted and asked to produce a position statement, rather than coming up with one spontaneously. Maybe all this is turning me into a conspiracy theorist, but it would be interesting to know more. In future, it would be nice the professional societies were discouraged from making sweeping political statements. (maybe that is naive on my part, but I hate to see these societies being used in this way)

  136. “As a graduate student at Harvard, I was told that fields do not advance because people change their minds; rather, fields advance because people die.”

    Man, that’s the truth. I was doing my post-doc in a neurobio/pharm/phys lab that had some very important work challenging the current dogma about nicotinic acid receptors. There was no upregulation in the number of receptors in response to increased exposure to nicotine, though there was increased binding, indicating the presence of hitherto unknown additional binding sites. Presentation of the very solid data (I knew the researcher and her work was always impeccable–she now works for a “federal agency”) at various meetings was often accompanied by outrage from leading (and long in the tooth) proponents of orthodoxy culminating in throwing wadded up programs at the overhead screen, stomping out of the presentation, and yelling that such results, if true, would threaten people’s careers, people’s lives. Ha ha ha.

  137. Gail Combs (14:48:57) :

    “Alvin (10:04:55) :

    The Union of Concerned Scientists has been trying to blame “deniers” on Big Oil backed groups for years. Again, political agendas and science mixing.

    Reply:
    Exxon who often gets the blame is owned by the Rockefellers. The Rockefeller foundations (4) are founded on Standard Oil Money which in turn funds Greenpeace, Sierra Club and WWF. http://activistcash.com/foundation.cfm/did/166

    Pot meet kettle…”

    Those with ambitions for a Global Power Grab use the environmentalists to the dirty work.
    It’s right that pulls the strings and their World Governance Doctrine is fascist, not Marxist.

  138. “Clearly there is some warming of the earth’s surface. How much is the question (as well as when and where) along with how big the error bars really are – e.g. Pielke’s work on night-time temperature measurements affected by wind speed.

    “-Maybe these are minor points (and maybe I’m wrong?) for an interesting post – but in the politicization of climate science, overstating a case can simply re-affirm the other side that their points of view are correct”

    Right–let’s keep our cool.

    =======
    Here’s a direct link to the Perseus-statue image. (The previous link took you to a redirect page):

  139. Lucy:
    “I’ve captured BOTH posts here, headed up by Pallas Athene, the Statue of Liberty and Lady Justice who presides over The Old Bailey (London seat of justice).”

    Maybe you could fit in that Perseus statue too? (Its message: Victory Over Horseshit.) Here’s the link again:

  140. Lucy: There’s a typo in the last sentence of the 3rd para. of comment #13 posted on your site. (I made note of it here with a boldfaced “Mod:” but it persists.) The first “to” in the sentence should be a “do.”

  141. Anthony:

    “If all scientists did this [spoke out against the CRUde practices at EAU], it would restore faith in the scientific process and in scientists themselves. By keeping silent, they are doing far more long-term damage to their reputations [and science’s] than the short-term damage that would come from speaking up.”

    Beautiful. Here’s what Voltaire said:

    “Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do.”

  142. Aruanan Sandoval (18:50:39) :

    “As a graduate student at Harvard, I was told that fields do not advance because people change their minds; rather, fields advance because people die.”

    Man, that’s the truth. I was doing my post-doc in …

    Right in line with what George Bernard Shaw observed:

    The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.

    Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

    – George Bernard Shaw (1856 – 1950)

  143. Ron de Haan (19:11:32) :

    Pot meet kettle…”

    Those with ambitions for a Global Power Grab use the environmentalists to the dirty work.
    It’s right that pulls the strings and their World Governance Doctrine is fascist, not Marxist.

    They are liars remember so they masquerade as marxists when they are actually an unholy alliance of Corporations and government sometimes called Corporatism, sometimes Fascism. They intentionally set up the socialism vs Capitalism conflict when they are actually working towards something entirely different Corporatism on its way to a totalitarian world government run by the elite. But they use political activists to further their cause through UN NGOs. Check how the Fords, Goldmans and Rockefellers fund Greenpeace and WWF

  144. In regard to peat’s comments, I’m not a scientist, but I have seen the trends he has described in other intellectual fields. Any student who starts out in a field, unless he is as bright as Einstein, will be unable to question his instructors in meaningful ways. You have to know the basics and rules of any system of knowledge before you can figure out how to question it.

    My concern is that it could take hundreds or thousands of years before the “climate record” shows one way or another who is right. In the meantime, the scientists who give aid and succor to the politicians who want to take control of the world march on, oblivious to the consequences of “groupthink.”

  145. It’s time we STOPPED this Charade. Peer review is NONSENSE.

    It VIOLATES the standard of JUSTICE in the UNITED STATES.

    Peer review is Anonymous? Excuse me, my “ivory tower” friends. ARE YOU NUTS?

    What CRAP! You can be “rejected” in your work, and have no idea who your “accusers” are.

    ALSO this PEER REVIEW has become a RELIGION with NO BASIS for it.

    To show you the VALUELESS NATURE OF PEER REVIEW, let’s discuss ONE, and only ONE paper… and PLEASE, all you “worship at the shrine of peer review”, just tell me, do you think this paper would have passed “peer review”.

    1905, “Special Theory of Relativity”. (On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies) http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

    I’ll give you one big HINT. It has NO references!

    Do you think that would have passed through the hoops of “peer review”?

    Was the result “correct”? Did it have an effect on the whole of science?

    Is the Pope Catholic?

    One has to WONDER in this day and age, how many potential “radicals” are out there, with potential “revolutions” to science, technology, mankind, etc. Which are being held back because of “peer review”.

    Frankly I think that is the beauty of the Internet. It is providing a forum, in which the “peer review” is the collective intelligence of the USERS. And more and more various thoughts, new views, new concepts will come forth. Without the benefit (or detraction) of “peer review”, and the concept will “sink or swim” on it’s ultimate validity.

    Check out Stanford’s “Silicon Brain” project, if you want to find out what REAL open exchange of information is like. (And darn good science too!)

  146. Dissecting/breaking up to better understand and pose questions …


    Gail Combs (20:21:23) :

    They are liars remember so they masquerade as marxists

    ‘Does not strictly compute’; one, in my mind, is as ‘bad’ as the other, so your point is ???


    when (1) they are actually an (2) unholy alliance of Corporations and government sometimes called (3) Corporatism, sometimes Fascism.

    (1) Who are they?

    (2) A written or unwritten alliance? Is this your interpretation of acts by ‘them’? Can your explain please?

    (3) Never really heard the term ‘corporatism’ before; does the US Chamber of Commerce use this term? The legal system? Birchers (not ‘birthers’) maybe?


    They intentionally set up the socialism vs Capitalism conflict

    Who are ‘they’? (perhaps I already asked this)

    Can you point to several of these ‘events’? Something done on a regular basis, not just a one-time occurrence. Some specificity please.


    when they are actually working towards something entirely different Corporatism on its way to a totalitarian world government run by the elite.

    Whoa. Where did you see ‘the plans’ on this, or is this another ‘interpretation’ (ala Alex Jones maybe?) you came up with by … yourself or with the aid of ______________ ???


    But they use political activists to further their cause through UN NGOs.

    SO the connection is UN –> NGOs –> Activists

    What would these NGOs be?

    Who would one of these ‘activists’ be?

    I’d like some specificity on these things too please;for TOO LONG there have been prognostications of these kinds of things (decades as I can recall, with certain specific events coinciding with Y2K that _never_ materialized), and TO DATE they have been vapor-ware. (I would hate to think you are wasting the valuable time of literally hundreds of readers with, well, mere dribble.)


    Check how the Fords, Goldmans and Rockefellers fund Greenpeace and WWF

    Hmmmm … do GreenPeace and WWF have to file any sort of publicly accessible IRS filings we can confirm this?

    How about the Fords, ‘Goldmans’ and Rockefellers – have you seen any of their SEC or IRS filings? Do you know where I might review them?

    Is it also possible these are ‘shakedown’ payments (as was used to be paid to ‘the mob’ for protection wink wink) as perhaps mentioned upthread?
    .
    .
    .


  147. GP (18:11:25) :


    In the end you have to consider what is ‘fit for purpose’ and try to match that to the available budget and, in the case of creative matters like programming, what the employees find acceptable to work with. (Assuming you want to attract the best and retain them.)

    Even then the QA is only for the process not the ‘product’ it produces.

    It is easier today, too, with a variety of source control/build tools (Cleacase et al and it can be integrated into a variety of tools) and electronic doc control systems (compared with the old paper-based drawing systems) allowing simple check-in/check-out with on-line approvals by the CCB members so some of this ‘process’ can be relatively automatic today thereby taking care of itself; again, as pointed out, the suitable tool/level of control for the job.

    Most of the ISO auditing I have seen is to simply verify we have a ‘process’ in place for change/version control, ECO/ECN procedures, and that we use it. Frankly, SOMETHING has to be in place just to keep things straight in the first place! A no brainer!
    .
    .

  148. Re: P.W. Minges (07:55:07) :
    > “Guest post by by John A”
    > “Posted by Sean December 2, 09 11:26 PM”
    >
    > As a matter of interest, who are “John A” and “Sean”, and what are their backgrounds?

    Hmm, you sound like a liberal. (I am apolitical… and a scientist)

    In science, arguments are considered on their merits, regardless of the personalities who state them. If this were not the case, then the young Albert Einstein–with no pedigree–would have been quashed before speaking (or published) by his distinguished detractors of the day.

    Apparently, in Climatology and the MSM, they think that if Jones, Mann, Hansen, AlGore, et cetera speak it, then it is true. If the speaker is an esteemed GW/AGW person, their arguments do not need to be examined and the data and source code do not need to be shared. If the speaker challenges one of the highly esteemed GW/AGW people, or is an unknown, then they are wrong from the start, and their arguments do not need to be considered at all.

    I believe in science and the scientific method, and not in popularity contests picking which science is correct, nor do I believe that the Pope should have jailed Galileo, nor should Jones, Mann, et al, been able to remove editors from journals, nor bar research from being published.

    I do not care who Sean or John are in the above referenced posts. I evaluate their arguments and statements based on the facts at hand, and the plausibility and logic of their words.

    Why do you care who they are?

    Newt Love (my real name)
    aerospace Technical Fellow of Modeling, Simulation and Analysis
    newtlove.com

  149. Sean: “the IPCC even printed the Finn’s plot upside down to convert the fact (cooling) into the dogma (warming).” I don’t think this is right. I think it is a reference to one of the series in one of Mann’s papers (2008?) and I don’t think it was actually “printed”. It’s been discussed in detail at CA. IPCC have printed discredited hockey sticks is a better way to go IMHO.

    I don’t think Sean should give his name at this stage. It wouldn’t help the argument much but I’m sure it would harm him.

  150. It gets to me that people like the professor are listened to. He is not a climatologist or anything really connected he is a Professor of Biological Oceanography! He in his statements will take it as writ that AGW is true. All he does is examine what happens if the SST rises in respect to his field. So he has an opinion on AGW which is no better than mine. He has accepted the auhority of his priest. The same goes for Stern and Garnout (OZ clone of Stern). If these guys fall sick will they consult a geologist?

  151. The Australian newspaper is the only one giving serious coverage on climate change, and interestingly ran this article criticising (as I have vocally in Aussie blogs for a couple weeks now) the lack of coverage in our country:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/hacked-climate-emails-ignored/story-e6frg6nf-1225807128478

    I am curious exactly what it is going to take to get Toger Woods peccadilloes off the front page and some serious debate going in our media.

    In the meanwhile we have to contend with garbage such as the link posted above, or spot the error i rubbish like this:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/gallery-e6frg6xf-1111120489924?page=1

    Back to square one of Gore’s swimming polar bears etc… FFS the media either doesn’t know, or doesn’t care, about seperating fact from fiction anymore. Take a look at the links on The Australian newspaper site:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/climate

    I guess even Murdoch is sold on the AGW theme…

  152. Thanks Sean for summarizing what many of with science backgrounds know.

    Like you I prefer to not give my last name. I don’t know if it would result in problems within my field, but it can as my employer is heavily into the AGW. And just in case, since I prefer to feed my family and pay my mortgage, I keep my last name to myself.

    I may at some point change my mind, but in the meantime all of you calling for outing Sean should think about Newt’s point above about truth not needing a prominent name speaking it to remain true.

  153. “Why do you care who they are?”

    Because they weigh arguments by the “authority” of the speaker. Critical thinking has nothing to do with it. They think that “reading comprehension” + “authority of the writer” = “examination of the issue.”

  154. Roger Knights (12:03:21) :

    “This is a strong feedback mechanism that seems to have passed a tipping point years ago.”

    In deed, it was 35 years ago when I was having a conversation in the weather station with my supervisor, our chief forecaster, about the problem with the new meteorologists being screened in college for their ideological suitability. He was a veteran Air Weather Service (AWS) Army Air Forces meteorologist from the Second World War, professor at a Florida university, and former National Hurricane Center forecaster.. Nonetheless, he and his students were facing problemsat his university, because his scientific views were not compliant with those of activist colleagues and their sources, such as Rasool and Schneider, 1971; The National Science Board papers, and the WMO conferences with the UN World Food Conference and UNEP.

    The MSM (MainStreamMedia) were preoccupied with Global Cooling stories at the time, but his colleagues were already onboard with the leadership at the WMO in an effort to promote a belief that Global Warming was instead an imminent to world food production and world hunger. Going from discussing possibilities in 1967 and stronger possibilities in 1972 and 1974, the WMO moved forward with a full warning of probable Global Warming in June 1976 with a clear suggestion that cause was likely anthropogenic. By 1979, the WMO, UNEP, and like organizations and closely associated individuals in those organizations at the First World Climate Conference were promoting a probable conclusion that AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) was a likely a Global Threat and urged member state to combat this threat.

    For more than 50 years, there has been a concerted effort by an elite group of believers to promote AGW as a global threat. Yet, even after 50 years of discrimination and usurpation of leadership positions in the scientific and political communities, dissenting scientists and their papers have continued to spring up like dandelions in the lawn.

    The Unbelievers have simply refused to bow down in prostration before the declared wisdom of consensus by the lords of AGW. All Hallowed are those who follow the path of Enlightenment revealed by the Lords of Global Salvation [with apologies to SG-1].

  155. My son is in his senior year of high school and studying and working in the atmospheric science/meteorology field has been his dream since he was 9 years old. I fear for his career already due to his skepticism of AGW and the fallout that will most likely derail any post graduate positions if he expresses his beliefs. If anyone is aware of researchers at any Northeast US colleges that have not yet jumped on the bandwagon, please post their names and universities. This info would also be helpful in validating our position of searching for the real science in the face of political climatology.

  156. Invariant (11:43:56) : Still, the AGW supporters would respond that the 10 warmest years since 1850 was all recorded after 1997. The trivial response to that objection is, OBVIOUSLY, it takes time to change the temperature of the oceans, the thermal mass of the oceans is huge!

    “The last ten years are the warmest ten year period in the modern record,” said Romm, who served in the U.S. Department of Energy in the 1990s.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/05/MNRL1AV3Q1.DTL&tsp=1

    This is exactly the response I predicted… Maybe it would be a good idea to address this issue in a separate post here at WUWT? Anthony, who should we invite to write about this faulty argument that clearly displays a lack of understanding for the slow thermal transients in the oceans?

  157. @ D. Patterson (04:47:21) :

    A good post, but I want to point out that the quote you attributed to me was actually by peat (09:31:04). I was quoting him. (I credited him.)

  158. IMHO, it is not possible to be a “respected scientist” while simultaneously serving as board chair of the American Association for the Advancement of Science AND the Union of Concerned Scientists. Were I willing to part with the money, I would enroll my two cats in the UCS, just for the fun of it.

  159. Re- D. Patterson (04:47:21) :
    “In deed, it was 35 years ago…”
    ________
    In deed, some would also argue, it was many more years before that. And it is not a phenomena that is isolated to climate, or the sciences, or education in general. Every era has its heroes and its fanatic rebels, every generation has its saints and its false idols, and every field of human endeavor has its masters and artists and its cockroaches and parasites. Occasionally, the mix gets disproportionately out of hand and empires fall and dark ages happen. I personally think we’re only addressing here one aspect of a modern plague (aka: cultural pandemic) that‘s gotten quite out of hand.

  160. Gail Combs (20:21:23) :

    Ron de Haan (19:11:32) :

    Pot meet kettle…”

    Those with ambitions for a Global Power Grab use the environmentalists to the dirty work.
    It’s right that pulls the strings and their World Governance Doctrine is fascist, not Marxist.

    “They are liars remember so they masquerade as marxists when they are actually an unholy alliance of Corporations and government sometimes called Corporatism, sometimes Fascism. They intentionally set up the socialism vs Capitalism conflict when they are actually working towards something entirely different Corporatism on its way to a totalitarian world government run by the elite. But they use political activists to further their cause through UN NGOs. Check how the Fords, Goldmans and Rockefellers fund Greenpeace and WWF”

    Yes, I totally agree, Corporatism = Fascism.

  161. Paul Linsay (10:16:00) :

    Jeremy (07:57:47) : Richard Lindzen is at MIT and one of the most vocal opponents of AGW. On the other hand we there is John Holdren, Obama’s climate czar and eco-catastophist extrodinare, who was a department chairman at Harvard”.

    He is doing “duck and cover” excericises in case ClimateGate really explodes.

  162. _Jim (21:18:32) :

    Dissecting/breaking up to better understand and pose questions …

    Reply by Gail Combs (20:21:23) :

    Moderator: this post answers the posed questions but is O/T. However the Copenhagen meetings show a strong resemblance to the GATT meetings where the World Trade Organization was formed. This post deals with a lot of the history behind WTO and the international regulation of food by the UN and WTO. Perhaps we can learn from history or use it to illustrate what is happening to Energy.

    They are liars remember so they masquerade as Marxists

    ??{‘Does not strictly compute’; one, in my mind, is as ‘bad’ as the other, so your point is ???}??

    Marxism or Socialism is attractive to young intellectual Political Activists so Maurice Strong, Father of Environmentalism and Global Warming, has said “[I am] a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology.”

    ??{ when (1) they are actually an (2) unholy alliance of Corporations and government sometimes called (3) Corporatism, sometimes Fascism.

    Never really heard the term ‘corporatism’ before; does the US Chamber of Commerce use this term? The legal system? Birchers (not ‘birthers’) maybe?}??

    Corporatism traces back to 1881 and Pope Leo XIII. I use the contemporary popular meaning “..emphasizing the role of business corporations in government decision-making at the expense of the public…Corporatism is also used to describe a condition of corporate-dominated globalization. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

    ??{They intentionally set up the socialism vs Capitalism conflict}??

    Today we have Corporatism in many countries but those in power do no want anyone to know. They prefer to make people thing they actually have some control. The capitalism/ socialism or republican/democrat divisions are just a “lets you and he fight, while I steal the prize” diversionary tactic with little real impact on the long range outcome. Look at Clinton. His Chief Foreign Policy Advisor was Robert Shapiro, CEO of Monsanto, who helped give us the WTO in 1995. The VP of Cargill, Dan Amstutz, while working for USDA, gave us the Freedom to Farm Act in 1996. This Act removed the US grain reserves mechanism and other safeguards. These plus the Bio-fuel fiasco led to the food riots in 2008 and record profits for Monsanto and Cargill.

    Socialism/ Environmentalism/Humanitarianism are excuses used for new laws. New laws mean increased government, increased budget, increased interest payments to the central bankers and a raising of the bar preventing new business entities. With the Corporate/government revolving door, regulations are applied selectively to the advantage of the big players.
    Example of Corporate/Government collusion: http://www.marlerblog.com/2009/07/articles/lawyer-oped/one-e-coli-o157h7-outbreak-i-think-i-could-have-prevented/
    Corporate/Government Revolving Door: http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Revolving-Door.htm

    ??{ (1) Who are they?}??

    Among others, The Council on Foreign Relations
    The Council on Economic Development: http://www.opednews.com/articles/History-HACCP-and-the-Foo-by-Nicole-Johnson-090906-229.html
    Bilderberg:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group
    The Club of Rome: http://www.clubofrome.org/eng/people/
    The 1001 Club??? http://www.isgp.eu/organisations/1001_Club.htm

    ??{(2) A written or unwritten alliance? Is this your interpretation of acts by ‘them’? Can your explain please?}??

    An example of a written alliance is the IPC (the International Food and Agricultural Trade Policy Council) It was created in 1987 to put food and Agriculture up on the trading table and make it subject to international instead of local regulation. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=2202 & http://www.publiceyeonscience.ch/images/the_wto_and_the_politics_of_gmo.doc

    …they use political activists to further their cause through UN NGOs.

    ??{SO the connection is UN –> NGOs –> Activists
    What would these NGOs be?
    Who would one of these ‘activists’ be?}??
    “The NGO Branch is the focal point within the United Nations for Non-Governmental Organizations in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC),..” You can look them up here. http://www.un.org/esa/coordination/ngo/

    when they are actually working towards something entirely different Corporatism on its way to a totalitarian world government run by the elite.
    ??{Whoa. Where did you see ‘the plans’ on this, or is this another ‘interpretation’ (ala Alex Jones maybe?) you came up with by … yourself or with the aid of ______________ ???}??

    Actually my conclusions are based on four years of work by myself and several other farmers around the world. Sort of like AGW and WUWT. I stay completely away from Alex Jones. I prefer Gisela at http://xstatic99645.tripod.com/naisinfocentral/index.html I and several others have had her ask “where’s your reference” enough times to trust her. With the USDA always accusing us of spreading “disinformation” we have gotten pretty careful about documenting and archiving copies of information.

    ??{Can you point to several of these ‘events’? Something done on a regular basis, not just a one-time occurrence. Some specificity please.}??

    I have nineteen pages of references giving a time line of the take over of food. This is a “short” version…. well sort of.

    Farmers normally save and trade their best seed . This allows micro-adaption to a habitat. The recent crop failure of corn in South Africa and “Horizontal Gene Transfer from GMOs” (Bee & Bat die off??) underscore the danger of relying on GMO crops. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/horizontalGeneTransfer.php

    This is a decent article: Describing the Council of Economic Development’s devastating impact on farmers since 1942 “History, HACCP and the Food Safety Con Job” http://www.opednews.com/articles/History-HACCP-and-the-Foo-by-Nicole-Johnson-090906-229.html

    TIMELINE
    – 1944 to 2009 Banking’s impact on food
    World Bank and IMF use the loans they provide countries to prescribe policies and major changes in the economies of these countries. http://www.africaaction.org/resources/page.php?op=read&documentid=207&type=7&issues=11&campaigns=2
    The globalization of poverty http://www.doublestandards.org/sap1.html
    Structural Adjustment Policies by country: http://www.whirledbank.org/development/sap.html

    – 1961 International PVP (Plant Variety Protection) Gave seed companies a monopoly on only the commercial multiplication and the marketing of seeds. Farmers can save seed. http://www.patentlens.net/daisy/KeyOrgs/1236/428.html

    – 1980 the Supreme Court decision in Diamond v. Chakrabarthy, living organisms can be patented http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Wisconsin_Lawyer&template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&contentid=49620

    – 1986 Mid eighties global commodity prices slumped, triggering a five fold increase in farm subsidies in the USA and the EU subsidy to double. This caused pressure from commodity exporters to pursue Agricultural Policy at Uruguay round of GATT. This was lead by Under Secretary of Agriculture Dan Amstutz. (former VP of Cargill and Goldman Sachs)

    – 1989 The U.S. comprehensive proposal for agricultural trade reform www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/1999/12/30/000178830_98101901511298/…/multi_page.txt

    – 1991 PVP monopoly Now applies to seed multiplication and also to the harvest and sometimes the final product as well. Previously unlimited right of farmers to save seed for the following year’s planting has been changed into an optional exception. Only if national government allows, can farm-saved seed still be used, and a royalty has to be paid to the seed company even for seeds grown on-farm. http://www.grain.org/seedling_files/smar2002.pdf

    – 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/agecon/trade/nine.html

    – 1995 World Trade Organization (WTO) Dan Amstutz, drafts the original text of the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture. http://www.zmag.org/zspace/commentaries/1711

    – 1996 “Freedom to Farm” legislation. Written by Dan Amstutz. Cargill played a significant role in pressuring the US government to move away from its farmer support programmes. http://archive.corporatewatch.org/publications/GEBriefings/controlfreaks/cargill1.html

    ANTHONY PAY ATTENTION TO THIS QUOTE!
    – 2001 Issues for the Agricultural Talks and WTO Trade Round: “The un-scientific so-called “precautionary principle” is unfortunately being successfully and constantly misused as justification to immobilize science and its applications, as well as to confuse the public. .” from speech by Mr. Auxenfans, (Monsanto) member of the Board of Directors at the IPC.

    – March 28, 2000 – US Senate- “”Freedom to Farm” becomes “freedom to fail” The bill has made sweeping changes in agriculture–it has produced one of the worst economic crises that rural American has ever experienced…” http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r106:S28MR0-0011:

    – July 26, 2002: Report Finds Fundamental Flaws in WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture: Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy report argues that the Agreement on Agriculture fails to account for agri-business’ monopoly over global agricultural trade. http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/891.html

    – 2002 Effect of policies on farmers in Mexico: study by Jose Romero and Alicia Puyana carried out for the federal government of Mexico: Between 1992 and 2002, the number of agricultural households fell an astounding 75% – from 2.3 million to 575, 000 http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/ftaa/topten.html

    – May, 2003, the European Patent Office in Munich granted a plant patent to Monsanto even though plants are not patentable in European Law. http://www.countercurrents.org/en-shiva270404.htm

    – January 30, 2004, Bush signed Homeland Security USDA’s Jeremy Stump, says, “It’s from farm to fork.” The order covers animals and crops – the entire food supply chain – and includes shared operations with the CIA. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/04/terror/main597948.shtml

    – January 2005: WTO/UN Guide to Good Farming Practices: This draft guide to good farming practices for animal production food safety was taken from the Report of the Meeting of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission (Paris, 17-28 January 2005) http://www.oie.int/boutique/extrait/25berlingueri823836_0.pdf?PHPSESSID=64969a28688594daf57a7263f42fb1ce

    – June 2006 Global Diversity Treaty: Standard Material Transfer Agreement (SMTA) a standardized contract that will enable much easier access to crop diversity. [ germplasm for patenting] royalty payment (1.1% of sales) is paid only if product is unavailable for further breeding and research. Funds will be devoted to conservation efforts. Translation: Bio-techs Corporations steal seed from third world farmers, patents it and pay money to Bioversity International http://www.bioversityinternational.org/publications/pdf/1144.pdf

    – December 2006 “In the EU, there is now a list of ‘official’ vegetable varieties. Seed that is not on the list cannot be ‘sold’ to the ‘public’…Hundreds of thousands of old heirloom varieties (the results of about eleven thousand years of plant breeding by our ancestors) are being lost forever … http://www.realseeds.co.uk/terms.html & http://www.euroseeds.org/pdf/ESA_03.0050.1.pdf

    – Feb 2007 GRAIN press release USA: Seed companies want to ban farm-saved seeds A new report from GRAIN reveals the new lobbying offensive from the global seed industry to make it a crime for farmers to save seeds for the next year’s planting. http://www.gmfreeireland.org/news/2007/feb.php

    – May 2008 Bio-tech companies lobby to lift ban against terminator gene http://www.gmfreeireland.org/news/2008/may.php

    – FAO is supporting harmonization of seed rules and regulations in Africa and Central Asia …An effective seed regulation harmonization process involves … plant variety protection… The key to a successful seed regulation harmonization is a strong political will of the governments involved http://www.fao.org/ag/portal/archive/detail/en/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=5730&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=1886&cHash=7f04326e35

    – Good farming practices lead to transition to sustainable Agriculture Slide prsentation: FAO (this is Agenda 21) http://www.fao.org/prods/PP6401/GoodFarming/tsld001.htm

    2009
    Kissinger said in 1970 “Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people.” Rep. Henry Waxman, Chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee is sponsoring not only Cap and Trade but The Food Safety Enhancement Act http://farmwars.info/?p=1284 What is he doing sponsoring a food bill?

    ??{I’d like some specificity on these things too please;for TOO LONG there have been prognostications of these kinds of things (decades as I can recall, with certain specific events coinciding with Y2K that _never_ materialized), and TO DATE they have been vapor-ware. (I would hate to think you are wasting the valuable time of literally hundreds of readers with, well, mere dribble.)}??

    In 1995 the WTO treaty was ratified. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/spsund_e.htm

    And in July 1996 there was a major re-structuring of USDA food policies: Changing to the international HACCP -Pathogen Reduction/Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Systems rule, http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Oa/background/bkbeyond.htm

    The net result was to open our borders to import without quarantine, close US testing labs and turn food safety oversight over to the corporation. http://www.agpolicy.org/weekcol/467.html
    The IPC wanted and got open borders and no quarantine.Tthe result is that the USA exports 700,000 tons of quality beef while importing 1,500,000 tons from countries with: Naegleria fowler, Encephalitis, Vesicular Stomatitis viruses, Leptospirosis, Trypanosomiasis (Chagas disease), and foot and mouth disease. The US imports 2.5 million live cattle from Canada with BSE (now found in USA) and from Mexico with tuberculosis (now found in USA), brucellosis (now found in USA) cattle tick fever, (now found in USA) Trypanosoma cruz,, (now found in USA), Bluetongue (now found in USA), and Vesicular stomatitis.

    In addition the USDA started implementing the WTO “traceability plan” involving all livestock and farms without Congressional legislation. This has met with fierce resistance from 90 -97% of farmers and the USDA has retaliated.

    The “Mere dribble” or paranoia has becomes something else when ”at 5:30 am… agents from the USDA swooping in (9 different vehicles)… almost one week later, and it is still going on. We have 24 hour armed surveillance….” Comment Cindi — September 18, 2006 This incident was checked carefully by several farmers one of whom I know. No actual evidence of wrong doing was found although Danny was found guilty thanks to a rotten lawyer. http://nonais.org/2006/09/29/henshaw-incident/

    Or when “they” use lies and purloined e-mails to prevent free speech at a public forum http://www.horsegazette.com/NAIS/NAIS_Supporters_Fighting_Dirty.html

    Or when “they” use “clout” to silence a well known farm broadcaster. http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message545721/pg1

    Or “they” use intimidation to silence their own employees.
    In the Apr 17, 2008 Testimony: Mr. Stan Painter, Chairman, National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals: Painter states his members reported an “enforcement” problem. When he wrote to the Assistant FSIS Administrator for Field Operation, the USDA response was to place Painter on disciplinary investigation status and contact the USDA Office of Inspector General about filing criminal charges. http://domesticpolicy.oversight.house.gov/documents/20080418113258.pdf
    When the USDA later investigated Painter’s allegations, they found no wrong doing despite his Union’s December 2004 Freedom of Information Act requests turning up over 1000 non-compliance reports – weighing some 16 pounds.

    …. Check how the Fords, Goldmans and Rockefellers fund Greenpeace and WWF

    ??{ Check how the Fords, Goldmans and Rockefellers fund Greenpeace and WWF
    Hmmmm … do GreenPeace and WWF have to file any sort of publicly accessible IRS filings we can confirm this?
    How about the Fords, ‘Goldmans’ and Rockefellers – have you seen any of their SEC or IRS filings? Do you know where I might review them?
    Is it also possible these are ’shakedown’ payments (as was used to be paid to ‘the mob’ for protection wink wink) as perhaps mentioned upthread?}??

    I mention them and where to look only in passing since I came across the information while looking for other information. However there is the Maurice Strong/UN/Environmentalism connection and the Maurice Strong/oil/World Bank/Rockefeller foundation trustee connection. The ’shakedown’ or bribes I uncovered worked in the other direction. Farmers were astounded when Organic Consumers, Food and Water Watch, and La Vida Locavoire supported HR 875, a bill that would wipe out organic farming. In digging I found they were funded by the Rockefellers. Maude Barlow a “no dog in this fight” Canadian, is a director of both Organic Consumers and Food & Water Watch. She has been handsomely rewarded for selling the US consumer out with an appointment as New Senior Advisor to the UN president on October 21, 2008. Orange Cloud who runs La Vida Locavoire, lists herself as a Consultant but she is “UC San Diego” Sustainability Coordinator and is working on the practical aspects of UN Agenda 21 as far as I can tell.

    International regulations, corporate consolidation and the slow eradication of independent farms is real. Couple that with the spector of international regulations controlling Energy and the Central Bankers controlling money, and you can have all the “puppetshow governments” you want you still have an over-government ruled by a non-elected elite.

    I hope that answers your questions.

  163. _Jim (14:58:29) :

    Gail Combs (14:11:50) :

    … produce “Harvard business school grads”
    I would have to classify this kind of account as purely anecdotal;

    Then there are ISO Management standards:

    ISO standards that provide requirements or give guidance on good management practice are among the best known of ISO’s offering.

    I don’t think minimizing plant maintenance is part of ISO ‘guidance’.

    <b.First Case: Medium size plant
    The plant had several extruders with custom screws. The HBS grad did not replace them. He moved on in a year and 1/2. I was in the meeting when the new plant manager hit the roof. The extruder was down for months and the stock of replacement screws for all the extruders had to be checked and several replaced at a major cost to the plant.

    Second case: Small Plant
    The maintenance guy was always crying on my shoulder because he could never get authorization to spend the money need to do repairs on the equipment. As quality Manager I was in the same boat. The HBS grad who was plant manager and part owner got drunk one night while he was on a business trip. He bragged to me about all the money he was saving so the profit margin looked good and he could make a killing selling his stake in the company. I left and shortly there after an extruder blew up killing one person and injuring several others.

    Those are the two most flagrant cases.

    I was one of the first in Boston to take ISO training back in the 1980’s. It is just a management system and only as good as the honesty of management. It is easily “gamed”. Only one out of the six companies I worked for did not “game the system”. I suggest you read what Quality types think of ISO: http://www.qualitymag.com/Articles/Letters_From_the_Editor/65730ee7f4c38010VgnVCM100000f932a8c0

    …”I’m wondering if there might be a silent majority of Quality [magazine] readers out there on the topic of ISO 9000. The response to my July editorial, “Eliminate ISO 9000?,” was the heaviest that we have received in some time…What surprised me is that the July editorial elicited no ardent rebuttals in defense of ISO 9000…”

    Sounds like you are either young and/or lucky enough not to run into work place dishonesty. I was not.

  164. Mods: I’m going to end up having to set up my own WordPress account so as not to ‘ride’ Anthony’s nickel … unless you guys don’t mind a few posts?

    I’m going to limit my response to the following pending a decision by the judges (the mods et al):

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    C’mon Gail, fess up – which chapter of the JBS do you head or recruit for?

    How long have you received The New American and listened to ‘The Power Hour’ with Joyce Riley?

    Some of the ‘debunking’ of the above has been done already (although I’ll have to say you do have some *new* material), to wit, the following work by Gerry Rough:

    A Debate With A Bircher: Part 1 and it starts like this:

    What you are about to read is shocking. It is the story of a debate with a chapter leader of the John Birch Society that started off with good intentions, but never really evolved into a serious discussion.

    Thanks to an unwillingness to acknowledge even the most obvious of errors and a touch of Birch form, the truth quickly took a back seat to preconception and ego rather than a thoughtful exchange of ideas. The entire debate as it happened is here unedited with the exception of a few spelling errors. All non-relevant material was deleted for the sake of brevity.

    Don’t get the idea that you know the outcome before you read on, however, as the debate takes twists and turns that even I could never have foreseen, which makes it quite unpredictable until you start figuring out the patterns that all of the conversations follow.

    One of the most striking tactics that the John Birch Society (JBS) and other conspiracy theorists commonly use on this issue is to overwhelm the opponent with information. The assumption, of course, is the common fallacy of logic that since there is so much information available on the subject that it must be true; the sheer enormity of printed text unquestionably makes it fact.

    and this general reference on conspiracies overall:

    Conspiracy Theory Literature FAQ
    .
    .

  165. Gail, you say:

    “Farmers were astounded when Organic Consumers, Food and Water Watch, and La Vida Locavoire supported HR 875, a bill that would wipe out organic farming. In digging I found they were funded by the Rockefellers.”

    Kansas State University (KSU) on the subject of “Congressional food safety conspiracies – small farms will be criminal” says, well, here’s the *link* .
    .
    .

  166. Gail writes: “Or when “they” use “clout” to silence a well known farm broadcaster. http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message545721/pg1

    Link goes to: “Derry Brownfield fired – CORPORATE CRIME REPORTER

    Farm Broadcaster Ousted after Ripping Monsanto’s Goon Squads
    22 Corporate Crime Reporter 18, April 30, 2008”

    The present reality (as it turns out) Derry Brownfield is ALIVE and WELL and also broadcasting again – he is NOT silenced! I personally heard him just this past week on his “Common Sense Coalition” show …

    website: http://www.derrybrownfield.com/

    Two down. More to go.
    .
    .

  167. Gail writes: “Check how the Fords, Goldmans and Rockefellers fund Greenpeace and WWF

    I ask: “Hmmmm … do GreenPeace and WWF have to file any sort of publicly accessible IRS filings we can confirm this?

    How about the Fords, ‘Goldmans’ and Rockefellers – have you seen any of their SEC or IRS filings? Do you know where I might review them?”

    She responds: “I mention them and where to look only in passing since I came across the information while looking for other information. However there is the …

    Gail, that was a completely non-responsive response. You didn’t have an answer and your initial assertion going in was quite strong (‘Fords, et al fund whomever’.

    Non-responsive response – strike three.
    .
    .

  168. The BBC’s attempt to counter every single ‘skeptic’s position’ is to be found here:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8376286.stm

    One assumes, based on this site, that there will several folks who may wish to take issue with arguments at that site…..

    But I think it’s pretty fundamentally important to either rebutt them brutally or to say: finally, you’ve used arguments which have some cogency.

    Now which is it going to be??

  169. Gail Combs (13:37:15) :
    Thanks for this posting.
    Gail, I would like to have the entire story, how do I get it?

  170. Ron de Haan (07:52:59) :

    Gail Combs (13:37:15) :
    Thanks for this posting.
    Gail, I would like to have the entire story, how do I get it?

    That is tough. It is sort of like AGW lots of people with different pieces of the puzzle.

    If it is my 19 pages of references you want go to OpEdNews to contact me.
    http://www.opednews.com/author/author18743.html

    Sorry Mods I do not know how else to handle this. The whole story would make a book.

  171. Jim you asked for information,

    Can you point to several of these ‘events’? Something done on a regular basis, not just a one-time occurrence. Some specificity please.

    I gave it – then you say I overwhelmed you with information and that respond with an ad hom attack calling me a Bircher.

    I then point to the death of a woman and John Munsell’s repeated attempts to get action from the USDA, and Senator Conrad Burns (R-Mont.), as well as attorney Marler about the E. coli contaminated meat came from ConAgra’s Greely plant PRIOR to her death. This is all backed up with testimony from Munsell’s USDA inspector and lab reports, as well as Mr. Painter, Chairman of Food Inspection Union’s testimony that similar complaints from his union were also suppressed. I include the fact the Organic Consumers backed the law HR 875 which does nothing to address the above problem. You respond with a farcical article with a cow fart acting as jet propulsion.

    I state Derry Brownfield was silenced. Monsanto leaned on Learfield who kicked out his old time buddy Brownfield. You ignore that and say I am lying because Brownfield found another way to go back on the air.

    Perhaps after you and all your friends have enjoyed the corn chips and corn flakes made out of USDA/Epicyte’s spermicidal corn you might wake up to the fact that government is not your friend.

  172. Note that the AAAS was founded by Margaret Mead and the same nutcrackers who started the whole climate charade in motion in the 70’s. Stephen Schneider from Stanford and Holy Benevolent Czar John Holdren were part of this same merry band of lying thieves. Furthermore they founded the AAAS for the explicit purpose of having an “official body” to stand behind this ruse, parrot the so called “consensus” and have be the authority all fallacious arguments for AGW were appealed to.

    So how hilarious is it that after the “science is settled/peer review” crowd, whose belief in each other was their only ‘evidence’ of Global Warming, has been publicly embarrassed, dipstick McCarthy tries to do damage control citing his affiliation with a corrupt organization founded by the same corrupt crooks, as his main article of credibility.

    But this is where mankind has gone wrong isn’t it? How many of the brainless followers of this religion adopted the “Green” badge as a way to give themselves a pass on doing anything else of use to this world. Apparently Twatting on Facebroke was wayyyy more important than checking facts on the guy who wants to ration your breathing. So in essence our bankrupt society MADE these people, MADE this agenda, and will be VERY lucky to escape with the same amount of freedom they went in with. The AGW movement has set many precedents that a hundred Climategates won’t undo.

    Nothing in this article or responses to it, addresses the damage that is evident simply by virtue of the fact that a dick like McCarthy even GETS A VOICE in the mainstream media. We are not out of the woods yet…

  173. Gail writes (Note: extraneous non-essential adjectives removed):

    They … set up the socialism vs Capitalism conflict … they are actually working towards … a totalitarian world government run by the elite. … they use political activists to further their cause through UN NGOs.

    Jim responds:

    “SO the connection is UN –> NGOs –> Activists
    What would these NGOs be?
    Who would one of these ‘activists’ be?”

    To which Gail responds: “The NGO Branch is the focal point within the United Nations for Non-Governmental Organizations in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC),..” You can look them up here. http://www.un.org/esa/coordination/ngo/

    Rebut:

    I’ll have to say, Gail, this is in the category of another non-responsive response. The questions was, “What would these NGOs be?”, and, “Who would one of these ‘activists’ be?” But, instead the response coming forth simply points to a website titled “NGO Branch” which self-describes itself as simply a “focal point” within the UN for NGOs.

    This is not, then, an NGO, Gail.

    Still waiting for Q’s to be answered substantively versus artful dodge and weave (which seems to work for most Birchers; the intonation and suggestion of conspiracy and skulduggery without really ever citing or proving it ).

    4 of 4 args down.
    .
    .
    mods, just let me know if I need to pursue this on a different forum.
    .

  174. A statement above says:
    “The best argument now for AGW is to argue that CO2 is, after all, a greenhouse gas, its concentration is, after all, increasing, and feedbacks that regulated climate for millions of years might (we can hypothesize) be overwhelmed by human CO2 emissions. It is a hypothesis worthy of investigation, but it has little evidentiary support.”
    The following website seems to offer a perfect explanation as to why the increase in carbon dioxide should decrease precipitation but have no effect on temperature:
    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html#Water_vapour
    The following quote appears at this site: “Adding CO2 to the atmosphere just replaces an equivalent amount of water vapour to maintain an almost constant greenhouse effect and has negligible effect on global temperatures.”
    The following web site seems to suggest carbon dioxide plays virtually no additional role:
    http://www.john-daly.com/barker/index.htm
    After analyzing the data and noticing very little difference due to CO2, this web site has the following quote:
    “This may especially be the case if there is any overlap between the absorption bands of water vapor and CO2. In this scenario, because all the energy in the bands is absorbed, further increases in CO2 will have no additional greenhouse effect. The implication would be that the pre-industrial concentrations of atmospheric CO2 were already close to saturation
    (total absorption) levels.”

    Werner Brozek,
    Science teacher

  175. I heard that some research showed 97% climate scientists think CO2 is causing climate change. A responsible plan for the future must involve moving from a carbon based economy to a sustainable one ASAP. If you are wrong and a policy of taking no action is followed based on a small minority view then future generations (if there are any) will label all associated with this view as grossly irresponsible.

    [REPLY – Look around this site and you will find all of your points are discussed (from all sides) very thoroughly. I invite you to stick around and observe. All points of view are welcome. ~ Evan]

  176. Global heating and climate change is caused by increasing concentration of water steams / clouds, keeping the heat inside the atmosphere, leading to a temperature rise.

    My old tennis buddy Mr. Svensmark, a Danish PhD scientist in atomic physics have used the past years to study the climate changes. According to him – a short explanation:

    Such water steam/clouds are small drops of water – a small drop of water can be formed/provoked by a tiny particle – they ARE also formed by small particles entering from the space, cosmic emission.

    The level of cosmic emission is variation over time, this emission comes from other galaxies. The cosmic emission can be calculated back in time knowing the position of the earth related to the rest of space / solar systems at a specific time in history.

    Mr. Svensmark, a PhD scientist, made a comparison of the cosmic emission over time, the past million years, compared this with the hearth temperature / climate – and found that there is a close relation – I saw the comparison which was curves above each other – being a MSc Eng studying the results my conclusion is pretty clear, the close relation over millions of years is not a coincidence – I think Mr. Svensmark is right.

    CO2 is a particle too – question is the impact compared with the cosmic emission – but looking back in history, the comsmic emission were able to give us several ice-times and other radical clomate changes.

    For millions of years the climate has changed on earth, ice-times, desserts before subtropics climate, the oil is the only left except the sand. All happened millions of years before the industrial age. Such dramatic changes over millions of years cannot be caused by instability on the earth – it has to come from the outside ! If it comes from outside, we can’t do anything about it. But again, if they bring down the pollution in the name of god or in the name of global heating, they have my blessing.

  177. The shock, scandal, and outrage at the UEA CRU leaked emails show how far the research into Global Warming has deviated from science. True science rests on multiple independent experiments and data, not on personalities or credibility; certainly not a matter of any individual’s words, deeds, or reputation. Personality cults reduce science to the level of entertainment and politics. And deprive the results of validation. Nonscience.

    That some researchers would be less-than-gentlemanly or even
    dishonest is hardly shocking. These failings are common in humans, especially when empassioned. The horror is that an important hypothesis like AGW would be so dependant on a single source.

    — Robert in Houston
    _____

  178. Well, notwithstanding these emails, I’m going to choose, as so many bible-thumpers choose to hide their head in the sand, to believe that humans are affecting global warming. Call me ignorant, but at least I am aware that not all the evidence supports my hypothesis – I am making a calculated choice.

    per my calculation:
    If we do nothing, I think we have the potential to see the world’s climate change in ways we will not be able to control, to reverse, or, for many coastal communities, to survive. This may not happen, but it is POSSIBLE. Anyone who thinks it is impossible is in denial.

    If we spend some money now, to promote things like solar/wind/nuclear energy/conservation, at worst, what we end up with is: more energy independence, less pollution in the atmosphere, and a long term solution for these issues that does some short-term good (jobs/stimulus).

    Sounds like a bargain, in exchange for some deficit spending, which would hapen anyway, whether you’re Republican or Democrat. (And Republicans, quit your hypocritical damn whining, I heard no objections to deficit spending under the prior administration.

    Check the polar icecap. When it is gone, there will be nothing humans can do to bring it back, NOTHING. Let’s do something while there is still a chance.

  179. To: Bill Briggs

    I agree, but more so.

    “Why would you believe climate research done by these people is any higher level than the Piltdown Man? Maybe a greater cost to society, but not much more important. Perhaps their motives are more pure, and perhaps not.”

    Scientific philosophy, competence and ethics are taught a lot less in the university these days and for the last several decades. Scientist of the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s used to have a developed culture of ethics. This is not the case today.

    Piltdown Man? you give me 30 million dollars, a brand new AOGCM, ten staff scientists, a name for myself and a seat at the royal table, I’ll prove any theory you want me to prove.

    That is what we are looking at today, a big pot-o-corruption.

    Respectfully,

  180. I am saddened how our great universities seem to be corrupted. There was a blast in the Daily Telegraph today from the director of Climate Science at Imperial saying that the databases all agreed with each other and that the models had some shortcomings but the were basically OK. Science is not settled by authoritarism. I would suggest that they look at themselves and actually go back to the raw data and find out what has been happening to the temperature record.

  181. This kind of crap is exactly why there are citizens who want to pick up their rifles and win our Constitution back. AGW is being used as an excuse to gain
    more control over the populace and strip them of their wealth. It’s not enough
    that our money has been debased and we are taxed to support useless
    government drones; now alleged scientists want to jump on the gravy train.
    Progressives, Socialists, Communists BEWARE! Just keep pushing!

  182. Armed Response to ‘Climategate’ question:
    Journalist Phelim McAleer (‘Mine Your Own Business’, ‘Not Evil Just Wrong’) asks Prof Stephen Schneider from Stanford University an Inconvenient Question about ‘Climategate’ emails. McAleer is interrupted twice by Prof Schneider’s assistant and UN staff and then told to stop filming by an armed UN security guard.

    Here is the link to youtube video clip. A must see

    Close to 200,000 views so far !

  183. Great article. However I could have done without the “Chaucer’s grapes in England” comment. That lowers us doubters to the Himalayan standard of data.

Comments are closed.