Editor of Nature forced to resign from climate review panel

And why on earth did Muir Russell think he was unbiased? Will he be replaced with William Connolley?
===========================

Honestly,
Did we really expect an “independant review”?

Well, that is an improvement.
So, who is going to be appointed now?

Amazing. The enquiry is falling apart faster than the science it purports to be investigating. Respect due to campbell for declaring his impartiality though.

I should have said: respect for declaring his partiality.

I think this extremely serious. They are basically saying/admitting that the Journal Nature is biased so we have to remove him. I reckon this will be bigger than climategate overall. Basically AL:L credibility is now gone. Nature will have to either kick him out as well or be seen as a trash publication?

This is d’oh-gate

So, Nature is to assess the process and the Royal Society is to assess the output. It would be just as appropriate for a Mafia boss to ask his mother for a character reference and his brother to assess his guilt. Fortunately the MSM are just beginning to smell blood and I can see a lot of would be panel members being challenged. This could be really entertaining. As each one is named it will be open season. I can’t think of anyone in the warming camp (other than the luke warmers like the Pielkes) who have not been prone to bias and wild exageration. This could be fun.

Blind deology-0: Harsh Reality-1

Don’t confuse me with facts. I’ve made my mind up.

John W. (13:39:48) :
If only he could be forced to resign from Nature.
For a moment that’s what I thought the headline of this article said. Oh Well better luck next time.

I think this Nature story is so big that it has now been taken off Google news search. Please leave it here!

The most amazing part…
“The interview, posted on the Bishop Hill blog, run by climate sceptic Andrew Montford, will come as an embarrassment to the enquiry’s chair Sir Muir Russell.”
No longer can the powerful elites control the flow information. A guy typing away in his rec room just changed the course of the UK government’s planned whitewash.

JP (13:48:32)
Milkoszi’s hypothesis has been around for a couple of years. It remains a hypothesis as far as I know.

Thank goodness we haven’t been having historical blizzards here in Oregon. No problem going to the grocery store to buy more popcorn.
And sodas. Got to have that CO2 fizzy feeling while I watch Nature go through unnatural contortions.
Here’s a tip for Campbell. Want to rescue your circulation? Put Sarah Palin on the cover. Or Elvis waving hello from the alien mothership. Unbiased real science ain’t your thing anymore. Might as well go with the flow.

He didn’t read the emails, just assumed the MSM reports were an in-depth evaluation?!

JP
Have read Examiner article and looked at the presentation. My maths does not allow me to judge the presenation, but this needs some profile. AGW is not scientific theory, only hypothesis. If Mikolczi’s work can be called scientific theory then it is already way ahead of AGW ‘theory’.

Sigh, well, at least they are being transparent. (Their real efforts towards impartiality) If the rest are as impartial as Dr. Campbell, then this inquiry will be as effective as Penn State’s into Mann.

It would be impossible to find people totally impartial. Maybe they should hurry up and ask those people before Al Gore visits them…

Oslo (14:03:10) :
“David Eyton, BP group vice president, Research & Technology”
BP has been funding the CRU since 1974.
No conflict there.

This is the sort of thing that will now stick to this man’s reputation.
Though there is a nice positive spin put on the story, it is because his impartiality was called into question that he had to resign.
As another reader asks, isn’t it possible he could also resign as editor of Nature?
Perhaps that is not so unlikely.
How long can Nature retain his services?
Nature’s reputation is linked to the rputation of their editor.
His responsibility was to ensure the proper and effective wroking of the peer review process for Nature. If it is suspected that his partiality may have compromised this process or allowed others to manipulate it, then both his and Nature’s reputations are both at risk.
I’d say there are some at Nature who are already making this judgement and he may soon announce his “resignation” to take up other duties….
Of course, at this stage of the game there is no real incentive to do anything other than brush things under the carpet. There may be a great loss of “belief” in the scientific community (mainly in the climate community but possibly corroding its way out to related sciences) but so far no head have rolled. The IPCC chairman is still in place, the various climate scientists are still effectively in place (Phil Jones has “chosen” to step aside while the investigation/whitewash takes place) so there may still be a feeling that this is something that can be “ridden out”.
Of course, we can hope that if one goes, then like dominoes many more will follow, not just in the sciences but in the media as well and including especially the so called “peer reviewed” publications.
What is far less likely is that people like Al Gore will ever have to answer for their advocacy and exploitation. Sadly, we’ll get to see some of the expendables getting their just deserts, hopefully, but probably very few others.

Nature belongs to MacMillan who belongs to Holtzbrink Publishing Group, a private German company. No one can hold them to account.

Dr. Campbell removed himself from what I am sure would have been a painful experience. It’s clear from the Climategate e-mails that Jones was on very friendly terms with various Nature Editors. Any investigation worth the name would have to look into those links, especially allegations that referees were stacked against papers that didn’t agree with “the settled science”. So in retrospect, Dr. Campbell couldn’t have served impartially even if he was inclined to do so.
Everybody who has been through a scandal will tell you that the consequences of the cover up are always much worse than the original crime. When you make a mistake:
1. Admit it
2. Fix it
3. Don’t repeat it
Truly independent investigators are essential in a scandal. Dr. Campbell could never have been that.
Mike Ramsey

@RayG and Harry:
“Dr. Miskolczi first published his work in the Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Services in 2004, Volume 108, No 4. He published further statistical proof in the same Journal in 2007, Volume 111, No. 1. In the 5 years since he first published his results, not one peer review has come back disproving his theory, or his Constant. To date, not one scientist has come forward to disprove Miskolczi’s theory that the Earth’s climate is at equilibrium, and that Carbon Dioxide cannot be released in amounts great enough to upset that equilibrium.”

This is a shocking witch hunt by believers in the new religion.
Who will not stop until all leading scientists have been replaced by pygmies, folk who can be relied to parrot the full spectrum of flat-earth beliefs.
The editor of Nature would have been an ideal person to judge arguments between scientists, and his disqualification because he made comments about the e-mails doubtless applies to the other panel members.
Commenting is not a crime – should only folk who have said nothing about Iraq be involved in the current Inquiry?
I think they all the new panel should resign in protest.

“JP (13:48:32) :
OT: Greenhouse effect is a constant
If this is true and holds water, it’s pure dynamite:”
I assume the pun was intended ….

Well a cock-up for the CRU independent review panel before it’s even started! No surprise with Sir Muir Russell in the Chair – his seems to have had a somewhat chequered career!
Wiki says:-
“…Career civil servant who was seconded to the Cabinet Office in 1990. He was appointed Permanent Secretary at The Scottish Office in May 1998, and to the Scottish Executive since its establishment in 1999.
He was widely believed to be primarily responsible for the massive overspend on the new Scottish Parliament Building and was criticised by Lord Fraser of Carmyllie’s enquiry for failing to keep the politicians informed that the expenditure was far in excess of the budget.
He took office as Principal of the University of Glasgow on 1 October 2003, but attracted much criticism for his handling of the 2006 lecturers’ strike, as well as attempts to close the University’s Crichton Campus in Dumfries and for receiving pay rises which were much greater than the rate of inflation. He retired in October 2009.”
Sounds like a good choice of Chairman if you want the review to be a fiasco :-))

JP (13:48:32) : OT: Greenhouse effect is a constant
I followed your link, and yes, it looks like some sort of explosive, but I also stumbled on these:
http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2010m2d3-Open-Letter-to-NASA-director-Dr-James-Hansen-NASA-GISS
An open letter to NASA director Dr. James Hansen (NASA GISS) on the same subject, and this:
http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2010m1d18-EPA-ignores-reality-in-scientific-breakthrough–unable-to-disprove-greenhouse-effect-in-equilibrium

Note to: Sir Muir Russell.
Everybody is watching.
(thanks to al gore).

It’s a sorry state of British science that they can’t find a sceptical scientist in the climate field. After depriving anyone who questions global warming of funding for 20 years, what would they expect? Anyone who would have questioned global warming would have gone into other fields. No funding, no research. No research, no experts.

At least Philip Campbell has some integrity and recognises his own bias and the inadequate base on which he cast his initial opinion. Hopefully he takes this new-found honesty into his work.
Seriously, how does one choose an unbiased committee? Just about every “competent” person has a viewpoint on AGW. The task has all the difficulties of jury selection in a court of law.

Typo in the article, independent panel, should be in quotes: “independent panel”.
REPLY: repeated as excerpt from Channel 4, take it up with them – Anthony

I should have followed my usual custom of logging in to ClimateAudit before stopping by here and commenting, above. CA discusses the committee’s terms of reference. Worth a look http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/11/a-muir-russell-avatar/

I have exactly zero respect for this so-called review. These people are committed to the cause – period. Put a fork in ’em.

There is a plethora of sound science and data on the side of the skeptics, hardly making it the “new religion”. Warmists have stepped up their use of Disinformation rule #26 by invoking the name of the flat-earthers and making comparisons to pygmies. The warmists are clearly now in cover-up mode in the aftermath of Climategate, and the unraveling has just barely begun. It was the cover-up, not complicity in the actual break-in that brought down Richard Nixon in the aftermath of Watergate.

“No if it’s true it means it holds LESS water…. sorry i had to ;-)”
True! 🙂
“The examiner’s article is very good. The most insightful writeup about Ferenc Miskolczi a newspaper has managed by now.”
Has there been any thorough and neutral reviews about Miskolczi theory? How credible it is?
To me it seems to be synoptic to Spencer and does not rule out Svensmark’s therory.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, the whitewash is off to a typical start. I am a bit more cynical than some here, ( OK I am getting old, probably a LOT more cynical than most here ), I wonder if Natureboy’s was a withdrawal is a hat tip to impartiality to muddy the waters.
As for his replacement, I hear Professor Philip Jones has some free time on his hands, looking at his resume, he looks ideal 🙂

DW (14:39:31) – Quite apart from the lack of any scentific evidence presented, I object to the language of insults you are using. This is a science blog. Please ground yourself in some science. Then explain your hypotheses – but expect them to be challenged, as is normal in the scientific process.

http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/ Olive oil just removed a message advising that Campbell had resigned its a joke

There is a concerted effort by Google/or someone in there me thinks to try to supress this story or at least minimise it. Its not even coming up in the news “climategate” etc..mr paranoie me LOL

Thank you, Anthony; thank you, Andrew Monford (Bishop Hill blog); )thank you, Channel 4 News; thank you, Chinese State Radio; and thanks to all the truth-seekers with expertise who comment on WUWT. Reading all the comments is a pure delight.
I am about as skeptical as anyone about any truth-seeking purpose of this inquiry. We easily can see that the outcome is planned, simply by the inappropriate appointment of Muir Russell at its head — look at his background; look at his statement of regret: ” I regret the loss of [Phillip Campbell’s] expertise”. It is Campbell’s expertise in phonying-up editorials, hijacking peer review for ideological AGW purposes, designing covers that lie, and publishing articles that falsify science (e.g., “Hockey Stick”, one of so many) that has made him an inappropriate choice from the beginning. The new international spotlight on this fraud is what INADVERTANTLY sealed his doom.
I CONSIDER PHILLIP CAMPBELL’S HEAD AS THE FIRST ONE TO ROLL (anyone have other names to contribute? ) AS ONE OF THE IMPORTANT PARTICIPANTS IN THIS CONSPIRACY TO “DESTROY THE SCIENCE” OF GLOBAL WARMING. UNFORGIVABLE IF THERE IS TO BE SCIENCE!
Perhaps Cambell’s influence (head-ship) has been only partially severed. After all, resigning from an inquiry is not the same as being removed as the editor of Nature. But we can bet that the world is watching. And are those Germans who took over Nature the same ones who destroyed Scientific American, a once fine popular science magazine, now an AGW rag? And who changed the policies of the once excellent Economist, now also beating the ideological AGW drum? The world is watching.
Perhaps the world will pay more attention to: Kirls 13:37:22, “This is a $7 billion/year industry”. (And do you think that maybe most of those involved financially are trying to use tax dollars/fees [cap-n-trade] or government subsidies to get themselves out of debt or to cover for the fact that they have become incapable of making a profit in the “free market”. I think this $7 billion/year industry is a desperate last-gasp attempt to get out of the enoumous debt that the socialist and bubble (Greenspan, Paulsen et al) economies have inflicted on “us” — citizens of every country.
Two closing comments: 1) Max Hugoson 13:55:05, “Nature is really a dinosaur waiting to die”; and 2) “No longer can the powerful elites control the flow [of] information. A guy typing away in his rec room just changed the course of the UK government’s planned whitewash.”
I think there are a huge number of angry citizens in this world.

Clever move on behalf of UEA.
Divide the problem into 2. The emails and scientific conduct, and secondly the science itself. Both reviews can fob off adverse comments by stating that the subject is being reviewed by the other panel, nicely obfuscating the whole affair.
More importantly, they can find some damaging stuff in the emails etc, and issue mild rebukes where necessary, – problem dealt with. Meanwhile a team of on-side scientists finds nothing wrong with the science. They will report with a considerable time lag between them, so that any damage limitation can be complete before the next report comes out.
They have taken 3 months to get this far. Not because they are slow, but because climategate didn’t go away. Meanwhile they have been busy behind the scenes working out how to deal with the problem. This is not Watergate, this is something that the majority of Western Governments and a lot of money are committed to. It is not something that outrages the public, as most of them are reliant on the MSM for their viewpoint. Until it outrages the MSM, it is going to be a long, drawn out knife fight. A week is a long time in politics. These reviews will not see the light of day for a few months, and there is much that could happen in between to distract attention.
All credit to Anthony and Co. for keeping it going, and all credit to those who comment here, but I expect we have a way to go yet. These reviews, the review into Mann, and the parliamentary inquiry here in UK will not bring closure, of that I am sure. Example: Penn state inquiry into Mann. How long did the general outcry into the results last? 5 minutes. How did they draw the sting? -announce another inquiry. Politics as usual. The man in the street doesn’t have an attention span longer than yesterdays page 3 in the Sun. The media know it and so do the politicians.
Sorry, I am getting old, so I have seen it all before.

In 1999, after completing a series of exhaustive testing of an IEC (Inertial Electrostatic Confinement) fusion device, Dr. George Miley submitted (with his Phd Graduate student, Brian Dysjerack, a paper to Nature…about the results of their work. The SINGLE PEER REVIEWER rejected the paper, on the basis that, “The IEC or Farnsworth Fusor, CANNOT WORK.” He sent Dr. Miley a 1972 paper by some fellows at Oak Ridge, that showed that the IEC device “cannot, theoretically” cause any fusion reactions to occur.

*Snicker* The Farnsworth Fusor has been manufactured as a cheap neutron source for some time, I wonder where the neutrons are coming from? From what I’ve read, that the fusor achives fusion was established in the 1960s.
Now, if the correct quote from the Oak Ridge paper was along the line of “cannot acheive or sustain break even”, that would be an accurate and non-risable conclusion. Bussards Polywell is an evolution of the Farnsworth-Hirsch fusor, Bussard figured out how to eliminate the internal electrode by confining the electrons with magnets.

JP (13:48:32) :
This I just found, it is new to me:

The Speculist –
Miklos Zagoni isn’t just a physicist and environmental researcher. He is also a global warming activist and Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. Or was.
That was until he learned the details of a new theory of the greenhouse effect, one that not only gave far more accurate climate predictions here on Earth, but Mars too. The theory was developed by another Hungarian scientist, Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA’s Ames Research Center.

I have read the paper, twice, and the review by a physicist, Miklos Zagoni mentioned at
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/05/the-work-of-ferenc-miskolczi-part-1/ .
or
http://pathstoknowledge.net/2010/01/13/ferenc-miskolczi%e2%80%99s-saturated-greenhouse-effect-theory-c02-cannot-cause-any-more-global-warming/
or just video

and the actual paper
http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf
It has some very deep implications if correct and evidently it has withstood scrutiny for some years now though I picked up some contention on Wiki.
Read it, no wait, better to first read the review to prepare you for the paper, it hard to follow due to numerous parameters as you would expect from such a complex system as a planet’s climate, and all written in short form.

‘Science’ fails another environmentalist. …
“Peter Garrett, who abandoned his rock star career to become Australia’s environment minister, was under mounting pressure Friday to resign over his handling of a government program to insulate homes that has seen four workers die while on the job.”
http://www.aol.co.nz/news/story/Australian-minister-under-pressure-to-resign/985491/index.html

“Phillip Campbell photo: Rockefeller University”
Rockefeller, this guys surely serves no special interests, he is fighting big oil which the Rockefeller’s are not part of.

wayne (18:33:58) :
JP (13:48:32) :
It has some very deep implications if correct and evidently it has withstood scrutiny for some years now though I picked up some contention on Wiki.

Someone on another thread, a couple of days ago, said that there were 100 publications refuting this theory, but didn’t give a reference. I’ve seen a few refutations based on semantics, i.e. Miskolczi misquoted someone’s law or whatever. I’d like to ask that poster to perhaps provide the reference to the best scientific refutation, if it exists.
I think Anthony had a short article on this some time back, but this would seem like a great topic for an article for someone like Willis. I could certainly school up on the principle of maximization of entropy and minimization of energy of our piss-ant ball of rock, water and a bit of gas.
Also of note, Susan “1000 year carbon dioxide” Solomon was the first author on a paper in Science two weeks ago showing that water vapor levels in the stratosphere were down the past 10 years and, according to the press release, the conclusion was that this explained the leveling off of temperatures this decade. I need to read the original paper though (which is more difficult since I cancelled my subscription), but I’m still wondering if Miskolczi was referenced in that paper.

I feel I must say that this is about the most poorly written article I have ever read. If one were not familiar with the situation at hand one would be (as I am) lost. I manage to figure out only that another Campbell is humiliated, which pains me for reasons you might imagine.

West Houston (20:29:45) :
“I feel I must say that this is about the most poorly written article I have ever read. ”
I think it was hastily posted as a “breaking” news story there and not edited wholly.

Quote: John G. Bell (20:23:02) :
“I worked in academic libraries from the 70s up until the very late 80s. I am not sure about the reason but scientific and technical journals were hit with dramatic publishing and distribution costs during this time. It is also possible that academic libraries generally suffered budget cuts. I don’t recall that. Perhaps someone above my pay scale at the time will.
Libraries were able to keep up with these expenses for a while but I remember seeing hard choices being made and overall number of subscriptions being cut dramatically. Librarians particularly dropped magazines they could fetch for patrons from near by libraries with ILLs and RBAs. This was the biggest issue at the time and it was done with a great deal of craft and much discussion between libraries.
I remember being told that many of the big name journals found they could replace these subscription losses by writing on a more “popular level” and on subjects also more generally popular. Or at least by expanding their distribution base they could realize favorable economies of scale in production and distribution. That is, academic subscriptions became less important relative to these new individual subscriptions.
For myself, I gave up reading Scientific American as far back as the late 70’s and now you say Nature jumped the shark as early as 1983!”
—–
Thanks, John, for your reminder of events in the late 70’s and early 80’s.
Yes, up to and including part of 1983 Nature published research articles and even published news reports as the old dogma was collapsing that Earth’s heat source is a Hydrogen-filled star.
In 1977 Science published this debate about the origin of the Solar System and the solar neutrino puzzle [“Strange xenon, extinct superheavy elements and the solar neutrino puzzle”, Science 195 (1977) 208-210].
http://www.omatumr.com/archive/StrangeXenon.pdf
It is intriguing that Nature, Science, and other major journals then abruptly reversed themselves and started publishing consensus opinions that led to the current climategate scandal.
As I vaguely recall, the late 70’s or early 80’s was about the time that federal research agencies started funding mostly “block grants” to large groups of researchers.
That produced climategate and a report by 178 scientists who coauthored the “discovery” that solar neutrinos from our Hydrogen-filled sun oscillate away before reaching detectors on Earth!
Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

I say this without a trace of facetiousness, but it would seem that any group empaneled “to investigate claims that climate scientists covered up flawed data on temperature rises” should incorporate – as a numerical majority – individuals who have spent the past several decades promulgating coherent critiques of the AGW hypothesis, emphatically to include people like Anthony Watts, Timothy Ball, S. Fred Singer, and others of similar inclination and reputation.
To build upon a suggestion by an earlier poster, we might take the Wikipedia “hate list” of William Connolley – all those persons whom this mendacious [snip] has maligned on the issue of “climate change” in the Web pages of “Wiki-bloody-pedia” – and base initial recruitment on that criterion alone.
I trust Mr. Connolley’s bad opinion as a strong positive indicator of a skeptic’s intelligence, eloquence, and fund of knowledge on this issue.
—

Strikes me the forces of denial and darkness are trying to salt the panel to get their politically desired outcome.

Regarding Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi
His paper is somewhat opaque, but here is an attempt to explain his ideas in layman terms :
http://www.landshape.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=introduction

I would not dismiss the ability of the British establishment to get to the truth. Sometimes it happens. There have been some interesting revelations in the Chilcot enquiry on the Iraq war. Just this week the appeal court ruled in the Binyam Mohamed case to release some confidential documents showing that the CIA was involved in torture of British suspects at Guantanamo, despite the fact that the British and US governments wanted that kept quiet.
The Sir Muir Russell enquiry is supposed to look into what was leaked or hacked. The Commons Select Committee, to be held in March, has more of a brief around the science. Select Committees are usually the place where the fur and feathers fly.
There’s a new mood of transparency in the UK based on:
The internet informing us all of the non-establishment views (thanks Anthony) including these enquiries being streamed and / or having their own websites
The Human Rights Act
The police, government, etc. having been caught out several times in outright lies, and the public being in no mood to hear any more of them.
What we have to do is to keep the issues we care about in front of the MSM , to ensure that the enquiries get the appropriate level of focus when they occur.

Thanks Anticlimactic, that’s the best summary yet, very detailed.
Everyone just loves RealClimate, all of their integrity, right?
The following link goes into Nick Stokes’ (RealClimate wiki) persistent attempts to discredit and stall this paper and here is a link to Dr. Miskolczi’s and the authors line by line explanation countering Stokes’ assertions.
All should read both.
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ferenc_Miskolczi
This one is a real eye opener.
http://miskolczi.webs.com/Answers_to_some_criticism.htm
What really will get you, if you know the difference between closed form integrating an equation and solving an integration by numeric methods, Stokes complains that Miskolczi paper is not acceptable because instead of numerically integrating the equation in a computer like all of the GCM’s do, he actually integrated the closed form of the Schwarzschild- Milne equation instead. Stokes seems not to accept that (authority?). Stokes seems not able to solve the equation himself. I didn’t see any of his objections holding any weight. Basically Stokes seems not like the old tried and true laws of physics, he must trust data more, wonder why.
( For the layman: that is similar to telling Einstein that you will no accept his paper on general relativity because he has only solved closed form equations in his paper. He must rewrite every equation in a differential form in four dimensions so the peer-reviewers can place them in a computer and numerically integrate to approximate the answer to verify his gravitational fields. That’s pretty close to what Stokes seems to be saying. )

Due to the complicity and duplicity of the Mainstream Media, Politicians, some wealthy Entrepreneurs, etc., I think all the issues will be papered over, minimized, etcetera.
I imagine the committee will “rephrase” the issues such that “innocence” is the only possible outcome. And, it will be found that “denier” bloggers have “conspired” to make a “mountain out of a mole hill”.
Until, the US Senate drives a stake into AGWs heart, it will continue to be a political “monster” threatening to drain civilization’s resources — for the benefit of the “connected” few. Right now the Senate is loaded up with “true believers” and “connected” individuals — so, I am not holding my breath.

Re: Miskolczi
Behind the curve by a year and half.
Also discussed here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/26/debate-thread-miskolczi-semi-transparent-atmosphere-model/

kim (13:26:53) said :
And why on earth did Muir Russell think he was unbiased? Will he be replaced with William Connolley?
===========================
I think Billy Connolley would be a much better investigator than these twits. 🙂

Tucci “I trust Mr. Connolley’s bad opinion as a strong positive indicator of a skeptic’s intelligence”
How do I put this – let’s just say that Wikipedia has been very useful, it has kept people like Billy busy on a fruitless task which will take just minutes to undo (when the time is right) whilst the real campaign was being fought and won elsewhere!
And in his own special way, silly billy has done more than anyone else to galvanise the campaign against alarmism. Come on this joker has been a god send to us – particularly when he was an admin doling out bans left right and centre and convincing everyone he met by his rude manner that there was clearly something rotten in climate science.

RICO the lot of them.
There should be consequences for this global fraud.

Phillip Campbell
You said, “The scientists have not hidden the data. If you look at the emails there is one or two bits of language that are jargon used between professionals that suggest something to outsiders that is wrong.”
Phillip, after reading the following email of LAST YEAR, I found that the widely used statement “the science is settled” was untrue.
‘——————————————
On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Hi Tom
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
Kevin
Source: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1052&filename=1255523796.txt
‘——————————
Cheers

Hi from Norway 🙂
I picked up this walktrough/walkover of the last 30 years of surfacetempdata collecting methods:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/policy_driven_deception.html
it is a 111 pages of ripping-to-pieces the credibillity of the global warming bias that almost everything in the IPCC2007 is based upon… If the underlying datasets and the so called compensation-adjustments is so proven messed with, it is GAME OVER for the IPCC-order already!
Every single reference to Global Warming/Climate Change as the cause of every single nature phenomena these days, is based on the FAKED FACT that this temperature-reporting from NOAA-NASA-CRU is showing a rising temperature. Even the climate-models is based on and trimmed to support this lie!
This report, made by Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts, should be heavily distributed so to make it harder to make such claims of connection -these claims are the ones Politicians build their “climatic power” upon. Ice melting, earthquackes, sealevelrise, heatwaves.. -they all scare the belief into people.
Add the subsea vulcano activity and hotsprings close to both poles…melting ice?? can you beleive it? -this subsea activity is not reported by IPCC, it’s not funded and researced upon either ;-). But by accident it is documented 🙂
((As to why this AGW conspiration was started, my horse is: to prepare for a CO2 market to take over for the fading oil market and power. Those riding the oilmoneypower do not want to lose their influence over the world and it’s trade. CO2-trade is an even more perfect intrument than oil to controll with it’s simply not geograpically dependent. When this truth start to surface, the only coverup left for the power behind is to generate huge, worldwide crises or catastrophes…… or will they try this “wasn’t me” once more ? ))
Kindly, Roger Abel

LOLOL….These GWA’s are more worried now that the climate is NOT warming than they are that it might be!

Every day the fraud is exposed. We will not rest. We are going to expose every single rat who propagated this garbage and we are going to expose the media who served as propagandists for the warming alarmists. This is outrageous. Wait until the grab for money is investigated. The investigation will not come from the driveby media, the statists, or the MSM. It will come from those who believe in truth and fact based evidence. We are going to drive out of science and the media every bum and liar who put forth this filth for decades. Say good bye to that vacation condo, you freaks.

“The scientists have not hidden the data.
If you look at the emails there is one or two bits of language that are jargon used between professionals that suggest something to outsiders that is wrong.”
NOW THAT IS FUNNY- We all recognized the LIES but apparently only Scientist’s think lies are something else- Scientific “Jargon”
Throw them all in Jail for criminal deception and fraud- Start with Al Gore
They only want our money- and there is darn little left of that at this point
THEIVING -LYING -CRIMINALS -PLAIN AND SIMPLE
If you stole a loaf of bread you would go to jail
THEY STEAL BILLIONS THRU FRAUD- and claim we dont understand Scientific”Jargon”

for a summary of ethics and safety concerns at a high profile cancer research center (mskcc, where clinical trial candidates are developed), please see:
http://www.mskccheats.blogspot.com
“Sloan is pursuing a systemic approach to reducing expenses and increasing revenues […] One example of this is discouraging terminally ill patients from seeking initial treatment or second opinions from the cancer center […] the admission of such patients is counterproductive […] to Sloan Kettering.” [paraphrasing salient features, MSKCC, CFO/Chief Financial Officer]
Institutes and individuals capable of performing such high levels of research clearly know better than to act in so disingenuous and selfish a manner
Why would a non clinician instruct a colleague to withhold/embargo known information relative to availability of clinical trial candidates developed off site, yet tested at MSKCC (e.g. BMS’, Novartis’) when the in house (e.g. Bioorganic’s) candidate had not yet left the proverbial starting gate?
Why have there been reports of high profile non clinicians leveraging clinicians overseeing clinical trials to continue enrollment possibly in variance with the intuition of the clinician … when very large ‘milestone’ (e.g. completion of a clinical trial phase) achievement royalty payments are in the balance?
Why would Sloan build a laboratory building strewn with toxins and knowingly not install ductwork controls?
Why would Sloan abandon a building after its employees are chronically exposed to poison (carbon monoxide) after terminating on pretense employees who complained about heath concerns?
MSKCC has been cited for ’serious’ environmental health and safety infractions by OSHA
MSKCC has been cited by the EPA
Ed Mahoney VP currently heads MSKCC Facilities Management
Sarah Danishefsky Ph.D. (a non clinician) has administered the bioorganic chemistry laboratory
Attorney Shelly Friedman has represented MSKCC when it attempts to assuage a rightfully concerned local community (and its CB8M board) relative to environmental health and safety (EH&S) concerns
Christine Hickey has in the past been a spokesperson for MSKCC
MSKCC, we hoped you’d be our hero.
MSKCC, minimally you’re supposed to care.
Shame on you MSKCC
Boo.
You know better.
How dare you, MSKCC

Robert Kral, having been part of the believers and doing my bit to cheer leader them on, I know that there doesn’t need to be a lot to totally change your view. Here is how I think it happens:
1. I used to assume the “sceptics were highly paid lobbyists” and the “believers” were well intentioned individuals struggling to get the science heard. It’s not until you WRONGLY get labelled as a sceptic and become the target of the bile of the well organised highly professional attack machine of the believers and see the disparate individuals who were sceptics – that paradigms suddenly looks ridiculous
2. I used to assume “someone had done the science”. Every one tells you the “science is settled” so you assume that somewhere there’s this superb science which you don’t need to see because it is it bound to be there.
3. But when you realise that it is just possible the evidence may not be all that it is said to be, and you start looking…
4. You go through a phase of looking whilst “giving them the benefit of the doubt”. The fact you can’t see how they justify their assertion doesn’t mean that somewhere there isn’t something that does justify their assertion that mankind is the proven factor warming the globe.
5. Eventually you realise that you have followed enough leads to papers that are about the effects of warming and not the cause and you have been led up enough blind alleyways and assured enough times that “it is there” without being able to find it that, you realise, even though you don’t want to, that you can no longer assert the assumption that: “there must be science underpinning this assertion”.
6. For a while you mildly assert: “on balance …. I’m not sure … but the evidence is not there”
7. Pistoffenough
Finally, the realisation dawns, that there wasn’t ever any evidence, that people have been blatantly conning you – and you’ve be lying to other people. And you know you used to be so certain that manmade warming was true, and now you realise that you’ve been had.
Notice, none of this change is based on MORE evidence, it is based on appraising the evidence that is currently available and finding it lacking. Most of the mainstream media are now in around phase 3/4. They are still giving the climate “scientists” the benefit of the doubt, but the onus is now on the climate “scientists” to prove that they have the evidence to back their assertions.
But as you will notice from the lack of any such evidence being put out by the mainstream media, the climate “scientists” simply lack the goods to back up their claim, and so it is only a matter of time before the press pack stop giving them the benefit of the doubt and you get the last phase:
8) “search for the guilty”.

IsoTherm had written of his own progress from AGW “believer” to AGW “sceptic” in eight stages, and I confess that I’d never thought about such a process before.
I’ve been a skeptic (extremely unpaid) on the subject since it first came to my intention around 1980. In addition to an education in the sciences, I’m a lifelong science fiction fan and was at that time very active in SF fandom. Mundane (“outsider”) prejudices to the contrary, fandom represents a population of highly literate, analytically adroit, technologically well-informed, and extremely argumentative people. SF conventions routinely run “science tracks” consisting of well-attended panel presentations on cutting-edge technologies of interest to SF fen.
Hell, at one Balticon, several clinical research people from Johns Hopkins presented several seminars on space medicine. At the first presentation, during Q&A, the chair got a puzzled look on his face when confronted with query after query couched in language straight out of Dorland’s Medical Dictionary and asked for all the physicians and nurses to raise their hands.
Well over half of those attending did so, which surprised the hell out of me.
He asked us to sign in at the end of the lecture series, and I came away from that Balticon with three CME credits from Johns Hopkins. Who’da thunk?
The moment the AGW hypothesis broke – decades ago – SF fen started batting it back and forth intra familia, and “the consensus” quickly evolved to the effect that the mundanes were (as usual) out of their friggin’ minds. It was obvious right then and there that they were overestimating the greenhouse gas effect of CO2 by at least three or four orders of magnitude.
Fandom then being what fandom is now – a loose aggregation of speculative fiction afficionados quietly convinced of our innate superiority in all regards when compared against the mundanes – pretty much disregarded the AGW blatherskite as bootless, and I recall no further significant discussion of the concept during the rest of the ’80s.
But I’d never had to make such a progression as is detailed by IsoTherm because from the outset I understood it to be an untenable and unsupported hypothesis, and had dismissed it utterly.
No change in the intervening decades, of course.
—