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!”
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!
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?
@ur momisugly 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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
_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.
_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.
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:
and this general reference on conspiracies overall:
Conspiracy Theory Literature FAQ
.
.
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* .
.
.
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.
.
.
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.
.
.
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??
Gail Combs (13:37:15) :
Thanks for this posting.
Gail, I would like to have the entire story, how do I get it?
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.
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.
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…
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.
.
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
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]
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.
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
_____
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.
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,
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.