Previously I have said this about the lack of integrity regarding the recent Climategate investigations:
The investigations thus far are much like having a trial with judge, jury, reporters, spectators, and defendant, but no plaintiff. The plaintiff is locked outside the courtroom sitting in the hall hollering and hoping the jury hears some of what he has to say. Is it any wonder the verdicts keep coming up “not guilty”?
Now from Bishop Hill we learn that it appears that the Oxburgh investigation let Dr. Phil Jones endorse what evidence (papers he’s published) to review. So let me amend what I said above:
The investigations thus far are much like having a trial with judge, jury, reporters, spectators, and defendant, but no plaintiff. The plaintiff is locked outside the courtroom sitting in the hall hollering and hoping the jury hears some of what he has to say. And, to add insult to injury, when you let the accused endorse which pieces of evidence might be a “fair sample”, is it any wonder the verdicts keep coming up “not guilty”?
This entire mess is snowballing again with UEA, CRU, and Dr. Jones right at the center again.
Details here at Bishop Hill who writes:
Well, now we know who the redactions were. The contact through with the Royal Society was through Martin Rees – we knew that already. The other redaction, the other person consulted about whether the sample of papers was reasonable, was…Phil Jones.
Now, whichever way you look at it, this is a funny question to put to the accused if one’s objective is a fair trial. I mean, what could Jones say? “You’ve picked all my bad papers”? And of course Jones must have known that the sample was not representative.
Gobsmacked I am, surprised I am not.
Sponsored IT training links:
If want to pass 640-816 exam for your career sake then try out the 70-647 dumps with 650-568 practice exam to pass your exam on time.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ryan says:
July 20, 2010 at 1:54 am
We find ourselves forced to ask the question: “Why are the Establishment so keen to ensure that the people don’t discover that AGW is a fraud?”….
I am coming to the conclusion that we are focussing too much on the monkey and not the organ grinder. Who is paying for this AGW research? Why is it entrusted to third-rate universities in the UK that carry out a minimum of real observations for the most important issue since the invention of the atom bomb? Why are so many governments world-wide banging the same drum?
It just doesn’t add up.
_________________________________________________________-
Oh yes it does.
If you were a politician would you want to have to answer to voters or do as you please and answer to no one?
The EU with its unelected leadership seems to be the “pilot study” of the hidden agenda. It is interesting President Bush already signed one agreement with the EU to “harmonize” US laws with that of the EU. Also see: http://www.tpnonline.org/TPN%20transatlantic%20market%20paper%20FINAL.pdf
The critical e-mail is this one mentioning Global Governance & Sustainable Development (B1) and Ged Davis.
Here is more on the (B1) scenario written by Davis: IPCC Emissions Scenarios
Here is who Ged Davis is (Shell Oil executive with IPCC connection)
Here is the context and history:
In Maurice Strong’s 1972 First Earth Summit speech, Strong warned urgently about global warming
Obama’s Chief Science Adviser is John Holden.’In their 1973 book “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions,” Holdren and co-authors Paul and Anne Ehrlich wrote:
“A massive campaign [read global warming/environmentalism] must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States. De-devlopment means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation. Resources and energy must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries.”
“The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge,” they wrote. “They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.””
The de-development plan is UN Division for Sustainable Development – full text of Agenda 21
Further plans of the UN: UN REFORM – Restructuring for Global Governance (notice Maurice Strong pops up again as the writer of the report from the Commission on Global Governance to the head of the UN. Our Global Neighborhood – Report of the Commission on Global Governance: a summary analysis
a lot of research and links about Agenda 21 in the USA
I hope that helps put the politicians take on Global Warming in context. It is a power grab all dressed up to make it easy for people to swallow. That is why is has been so blasted hard to kill. It has never been about science because it was planned from the very start forty years ago. It is like trying to discuss what color your wallet is with the thug who is trying to steal it – he really isn’t interested he just wants the money.
The futility of trying to control climate
On average world temperature is +15⁰C. This is sustained by the atmospheric Greenhouse Effect 33⁰C. Without the Greenhouse Effect the planet would be un-inhabitable at -18⁰C. The Biosphere and Mankind need the Greenhouse Effect.
So just running the numbers by roughly translating the Greenhouse Effect into ⁰C:
• Greenhouse Effect = 33.00⁰C
• Water Vapour accounts for about 95% of the Greenhouse Effect = + 31.35⁰C
• Other Greenhouse Gasses GHGs account for 5% = ~1.65⁰C
• CO2 is 75% of the effect of all GHGs = 1.24⁰C
• Most CO2 in the atmosphere is natural, more than 93%:
• Man-made CO2 is less than 7% of total atmospheric CO2 = 0.087⁰C:
• so closing carbon economies of the Whole World could only ever achieve a virtually undetectable <1/10 ⁰C.
As the temperature reduction that could be achieved by closing the whole of the World’s Carbon economies is less than 1/10 ⁰C, how can the Green movement and their supporting politicians think that their remedial actions can limit warming to only + 2.00 ⁰C?
See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy0_SNSM8kg
So the probability is that any current global warming is not man-made and in any case such warming could be not be influenced by any remedial action taken by mankind however drastic.
If this is really so, then the prospect should be greeted with Unmitigated Joy:
• concern over CO2 as a man-made pollutant can be discounted.
• it is not necessary to damage the world’s economy to no purpose.
• if warming were happening, it would lead to a more benign and healthy climate for all mankind.
• any extra CO2 is already increasing the fertility of all plant life and thus enhancing world food production.
• a warmer climate, within natural variation, would provide a future of greater opportunity and prosperity for human development. This has been well proven in the past and would now especially benefit the third world.
Nonetheless, this is not to say that the world should not be seeking more efficient ways of generating its energy, conserving its energy use and stopping damaging its environments. And there is a real need to wean the world off the continued use of fossil fuels simply on the grounds of:
• security of supply
• increasing scarcity
• rising costs
• their use as the feedstock for industry rather than simply burning them.
The French long-term energy strategy with its massive commitment to nuclear power is impressive, (85% of electricity generation).
Even if one is concerned about CO2, Nuclear Energy pays off, French CO2 emissions / head are the lowest in the developed world.
However in the light of the state of the current solar cycle, it seems that there is a real prospect of damaging cooling occurring in the near future for several decades.
Johnny de Vulcan says:
July 20, 2010 at 9:38 am
I admit, you really had me there, till you mentioned Chem Trails and I realised you were just puilling the one with bells on.
Hannah Virtanen writes:
“If in government institutions people would have the permanent funding regardless of their results, if they are as expected and as desired or not, they are more bound to tell the truth about their results?”
Thanks for all your very good comments. The scientists (and all other staff) should be employed by the research institute and not by the project. The projects should be Managed like the Manhattan Project. These things exist and have existed for some time. There are research hospitals that employ scientists and laboratory staff who do, say, cancer research and who might work on several projects during their careers or might work on just one project. They are employed and managed by the research hospital, not by the associated medical school or university, and they are rewarded for their achievements, usually judged by publications, not for the success of the project. Some percentage of the funding comes from government grants but most of it comes from private contributions. In addition, there are safeguards that have been bulit in over the years. No group of researchers in one of these institutions would claim that a cure for AIDS must be found in ten years or the human race will be devastated. These institutions might be non-profits, technically, but they are managed like private businesses, or better, and not like universities.