Readers will recall that I launched a volley against former Senator Tim Wirth regarding his recent statement where he wants to “come after” skeptics. I also made him a standing offer to attend the upcoming ICCC6 conference, offering up my 15 minutes to him to address the conference. You can read that essay Bring it, Mr. Wirth – a challenge here.
This morning, doing some web searching to see if the challenge had been picked up elsewhere, I ran across this gobsmacking quote from Wirth in 1993. It was then that I realized that the former Senator is mentally incapable of addressing the issue of global warming on a factual level, and there would never be a response to my challenge and offer.
“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy. ” – Timothy Wirth quoted in Science Under Siege by Michael Fumento, 1993
That’s true religion. Wirth’s quote makes Dr. Phil Jones look almost reasonable by comparison.
When asked by Warwick Hughes for this data, Dr. Jones famously replied:
Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.
More wisdom from Wirth here
Is the source code for any of the global climate models publicly available?
Jones’ remark will live in recorded history as an excellent example of a scientist denying scientific method and the entire ethical framework that is part and parcel of it.
Sounds a lot like “No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Anyone have a date for the above Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment) quote? It’s so heavily prominent on the net that Google hides it among an insane number that don’t have a date.
Senator Wirth is the consummate spokesman for the AGW camp.
Hugh Pepper
June 26, 2011 at 10:39 am
Since 1993, there have been thousands of peer reviewed research papers presented which have enhanced our knowledge of climate change appreciably. As a matter of shear honesty, you must be aware of this and it is curious to me why you have not been impacted by this well documented information.
###
What you mean is, thousands of pal reviewed propaganda pieces packaged as science.
@Curious Canuck
She stated that on December 14, 1998, my daughter’s birthday.
Wirth’s comment isn’t about religion, it’s about politics. Specifically One World Government politics. The dream of every petty tyrant since the dawn of civilizaiton.
My turn:
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Maurice Strong (U.N. environmental leader).
Buck Smith says:
June 26, 2011 at 10:59 am
Is the source code for any of the global climate models publicly available?
These have been looked at and there has been some discussion on WUWT and other sites. I did not find a link but remember reading them at the time. I did find a link to “source code” regarding temperature data processing. You might like to have a look and maybe check the 276 comments for additional ideas.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-the-smoking-code/
Curious Canuck says:
June 26, 2011 at 11:12 am
Calgary Herald, 14 December 1998.
Tracking down an original source for some of the quotes floating around the web on global warming is not easy. Some are out of context. I always try to give a book or magazine publication date and page when quoting something. It really makes it easier to verify.
The Christine Stewart quote used in Curious Canuck’s comment was supposed to be in the Calgary Herald 12/14/98, but I was never able to find it on the web. Doesn’t mean it isn’t there somewhere.
“there would never be a response to my challenge and offer.”
I could have told you that by simply looking at his statements that he wanted climate skeptics silenced….
Oh wait I did tell you that.
Several of your commenters are still obsessed with Phil Jones, as if the entire case for AGW depended on his research. There are at least five other lines of evidence which overlap and support the CRU data. If the Jones team was the only provider of evidence, your correspondents might have a point. But this is clearly NOT the case.
Lines of evidence for what? That we’ve been in a multi-decade warming spell? Yes. We have. Lots of evidence related to that in studies of flora and fauna response to a warming spell. On this site, we file this revelation under: duh.
Or are you talking about the temperature series itself from monitoring stations? Not so fast. Just where did this temperature data come from that these five other lines of evidence used?
“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy. ” – Timothy Wirth quoted in Science Under Siege by Michael Fumento, 1993
huh. Would you like some hypocrisy with that order of hubris? Or do you have enough ‘consensus’ with your order?
Juanse Barrose @ur momisugly June 26, 10:13 am
Yes and No. In any experiment once you’ve accumulated the primary data, you
can do comparisions with other similar studies, treat the numbers mathmatically
to describe the primary data, or pop the numbers into a computer model and
then vary the factors that lead to the data being what it is, or with changing a
factor here or there, what the data might predict.
However, what ever you do you have to show the basic data was reliable and
obtained without sample bias. Your mathmatical treatments have to be shown
and replicable by someone else using your data. If it’s replicable,
then everything is probably OK.
One major problem that’s not immediately obvious:
There’s not a lot of public or private money floating around to fund studies
aimed to prove/disprove replicability in areas like temperature
reconstructions, climate variability, and proxy sampling and their interpretations.
There’s not a lot of professional credential building or future journal citations
attached to replicating/failing to replicate someone else’s work. The academic
doctorate programs and the post doc and tenure track “publish or perish”
syndrome really only recognizes studies that “advance knowledge in a
given field… not something that is viewed as the research equivalent of
treading water. You sure won’t make friends by trying to replicate a study,
failing to replicate the results, then talking about it or publishing
our finding that the reults couldn’t be replicated. This = not OK.
Please see the “Team” and their supporter’s/cheerleader’s pronouncements
on the subject of Steve McIntire, Climate Audit, and Anthony Watt and WUWT.
Anathema !!
That’s why Mike Mann’s work back in 1998 is crucial to the “warming” crowd.
A myriad of studies since then are based on the data he made available and the
interpretaions he drew from various incarnations of his “models”.
The next generation of climate studies and models sometimes don’t even cite
Mann’s early work… they just rely on studies that deep down inside, relied on
the early (and now controversial) “Team” efforts.
The link above to more Wirthless wisdom – “While in the Senate, he co-sponsored legislation that would, among other things, give priority to international aid programs that “enhance access to… bicycles, carts, pack animals, and similar affordable, non-motorized vehicles” for the purpose of reducing use of fossil fuels (greenhouse gases), relegating the recipient nations to a perpetual Third World status.”
Reminded me of Global 2000 Report to the President in 1980 with its running meme of “population control” –
“The report argued that without countervailing action, by the year 2000 there will be 2 to 4 billion people too many. Therefore, the report said, it is required that the government implicitly direct all policies domestic and foreign toward the elimination of 2 to 4 billion people by the year 2000. ………The Global 2000 Report, however, assumed no diffusion of modern agroindustrial capabilities to the Third World. Instead, it assumed that the Third World would be denied even available forms of technology.” http://compleatpatriot.blogspot.com/2009/11/club-of-romes-nazi-environmentalism-to.html
I think the “climate deniers” slur was a deliberate introduction as too the accusation that “skeptics are funded by big oil” – both have become so prevalent that people using them do so automatically, like using the latest slang, and a common reaction is surprise when the connection to the holocaust is pointed out, and, both are actually applicable to the originators of the AGWScam and their ideology so using this technique for deflecting attention away the originators and their motives has been a success.
Monckton’s ‘error’, I’m not sure it was, was to relate that to an individual rather than the general ideology of many behind these moves to destroy economies. But the picture is out there. It would be interesting to know how any rank and file environmentalists present reacted to it, I doubt they think of themselves in that way regardless how often we note they repeat the slogans.
Someone said that it was time this was taken away from debating the ‘science’ and into the political arena proper, I don’t really agree with that. No reason for this not to be happening at the same time, and there are mps and senators and so on involved now, but I think that would become a natural outcome when the message the science is corrupt gets better known, as in Australia, from the people themselves. It’s difficult because the MSM is controlled by these same interested parties, but I think the emphasis should still be on getting real science back into general consciousness and so the education system and that’s where blogs like this are invaluable. There’s something, perhaps it’s part of stats?, that talks about a ‘tipping’ point in the spread of information, that this can go practically instantly from a few talking about something to mainstream.
“Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”
I have seen this quote several times, but every time without a source. Can someone point me to the article / letter / whatever it was from Phil containing that statement? It is a powerful quote to the effect that Phil Jones hasn’t the faintest idea how science works… but only if I can back it up with a reference.
What exactly is his link and loyalty to Hansen?
Hugh Pepper says:
June 26, 2011 at 10:39 am
“Anthony, wouldn’t it be fair and helpful to have the context in which Wirth’s comment was made?”
There is no context under which Wirth’s statement is conscionable. It is simple as that. Evocation of the “precautionary principle” as justification to bamboozle the public is execrable. Considering the events and revelations of “climate science” since 1993, skeptic objection to warmist dirty science tricks, obfuscation and advocacy have been shown to be fully justified. You state that “there have been thousands of peer reviewed research papers presented which have enhanced our knowledge of climate change appreciably” implying that the science since 1993 has advanced the CAGW cause. Well, dream on, Hugh Pepper. The empirical science is not cooperating with the warmists and their desperation is showing, one can imagine the beads of sweat on their brows. Just witness the recent sea level peer reviewed paper Kemp 2011 with Mann as a coauthor. Even a layman can see that it is garbage. Even without the data being archived, In a few days skeptics have eviscerated this turkey. Kyoto is dead, Copenhagen was a farce and skeptics smell blood.
Confucious was so pithy about it: “Argue with a fool and there are two fools arguing.”
But maddeningly, when it comes to climate fools we have no choice but to at least keep correcting them. The environmental echo-chamber is huge and just keeps growing. It’s futile to suppose that reason and evidence will ever get a hearing in there; all we can do is try to contain it and keep it from growing even more.
BTW, delicious irony that Wirth’s statement appeared in a book called “Science Under Siege,” no?
Lee – re the Phil Jones quote: http://climateaudit.org/2005/10/15/we-have-25-years-invested-in-this-work/
Goodness, a lot has happened since 2006. On 15 Feb that year I wrote a letter to our national newspaper, “The Australian”, saying in part about scientists with agendas –
“An example is the selection of Australian weather recording sites used to construct the temperature measurements of the continent, which play a big part in southern hemisphere weather models. From the beginning, most sites that showed little or no temperature rise or a fall from, say, the 1880s to now were rejected. The few sites selected to represent Australia were mainly from capital cities and under suspicion for “heat island” effects.”
The public reaction was severely against my assertion.Then, as I explained further about the early Phil Jones papers and letter to Nature, jaws began to drop. By now, mid 2011, most Australians have come to think that global warming is questionable. (I think that a decade of global non-warming has much to do with that).
Although I lost the original emails in a disc crash, here is something else I wrote on 28 March 2006:
6. I have since asked Phil Jones from East Anglia for a copy of his selection of the original Australian data. He says “We no longer have the Australian station data we were using in the early 1980s. At that time we had a limited network.”
How many variations of the Jones story have you heard since?
Myrrh;
Yes, the science and politics are linked at the root.
The consistent propagandistic effort to identify “science” with the peer-pal-reviewed literature is exemplified by commenters like Hugh Pepper. The next step is to label and slander those who question its validity by equating their stance every clichéed example of anti-scientific thought they can dredge up. Hence come . sneering references to doubters of evolution, heliocentric astronomy, etc.
When the quality of the consensus’ science is questioned, references to the “97% of qualified climate scientists believe” meme or lists of “official” science association pronouncements (from NAS etc.) are appealed to as “authorities”. Again, the intent is to try to make skepticism look like crackpot outlier nattering.
Manipulative efforts like this are justified by Wirth and others, to themselves, as necessary to move the world along towards the “properly managed” state they long to impose on the globe; this is the noble cause to which they end up appealing. Managing the climate and managing humanity are all part of the same control-freaky obsession. So it’s personal when they take on M&M or Anthony; the act of raising questions or doubts is taken as hostility and responded to with hostility. At the political level, that assessment is not too far wrong. At the science level, it’s much too far wrong.
JN says:
“It’s about money. He’s on the dole. He’s the head of the “United Nations Foundation.” How much money does the UN make off it CO2 offset verification program? Do an article on the UN. How about one on Kleiner Perkins and Al Gore too?”
I think there is a misunderstanding about what the UN Foundation is and who runs it. Visit their website. One could easily be convinced by the logos and all that that it’s part of the UN. It is in fact run by the US State Department and is a vehicle for the implementation of US foreign policy, like all Federal development aid.
Readers and contributors: please stop the knee-jerk anti-UN dribbling and first find out something about what you are attacking. And please be a little more skeptical before blindly accepting claims made for or against any person or organisation. It is all about independent investigation of truth, not latching onto cosy phrases.