The Need To Revisit The Climategate Revelations To Counter Mainstream Media Failure And The Paris Climate Conference Plans

Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

climategate-burn-tapes

It is time to revisit the emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia. The first 1000 emails were released in November 2009 just prior to the Climate Conference of the Parties (COP) 15 scheduled for Copenhagen. They effectively stopped political plans for a replacement of the Kyoto Protocol, a massive redistribution of wealth designed as part of Agenda 21. You can read what the UN says about this plan developed under the auspices of Maurice Strong as head of the United Nations Environment Progam (UNEP) or read Glenn Becks interpretation of the implications.

Here is a sampling:

Thanks to Tom Nelson for this compendium.

Thanks to Tom Nelson for this compendium.

We need to remind people of the revelations to undermine the completely unnecessary and unjustified plans scheduled for the upcoming Paris Climate Conference (COP21). The person who released the emails is now apparently safe from prosecution because in covering up what went on the CRU revealed valuable information. The first revelation occurred when Phil Jones, Director of the CRU, told the police the files were stolen (hacked). His action required that he admit the files were legitimate. The second involved the police inquiry done by the Norfolk Constabulary that followed. They took so long that the statute of limitations expired. How convenient! Presumably, the statute expiration applies to the whistleblower.

Richard Black of the BBC, a longtime confidant of the CRU and the UKMO, wrote,

Norfolk Constabulary says there is no realistic prospect of finding the culprit within the statutory time limit of three years since the 2009 offence.

The theft and release of e-mails from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit provoked a huge furore over the integrity of climate science.

Police say the theft was “sophisticated and orchestrated”, and that no-one at the university is implicated.

“The complex nature of this investigation means that we do not have a realistic prospect of identifying the offender or offenders and launching criminal proceedings within the time constraints imposed by law,” said Detective Chief Superintendent Julian Gregory, the officer in charge of the investigation.

 

These claims are balderdash. How convenient to take longer than the statute of limitations to reach this conclusion. Whoever released the files had access to the UEA computer system and knew which files and emails were significant, as the web page “smalldeadanimals” explained. Besides, in short order and after detailed analysis Canadian network engineer Lance Levsen showed convincingly the source was someone within the university. He concluded:

For the hacker to have collected all of this information s/he would have required extraordinary capabilities…to crack an Administrative file server to get to the emails and crack numerous workstations, desktops, and servers to get the documents.

We don’t know who the Norfolk Constabulary interviewed. It is most likely they would not know what questions to ask. We know Keith Briffa was troubled by what went on. Emails show his conflicts within the group and especially with Mann over the ‘hockey stick’.

On October 5, 2009, Wigley wrote to Jones:

It is distressing to read that American Stinker item. But Keith (Briffa) does seem to have got himself into a mess. As I pointed out in emails, Yamal is insignificant…I presume they went thru papers to see if Yamal was cited, a pretty foolproof method if you ask me. Perhaps these things can be explained clearly and concisely—but I am not sure Keith is able to do this as he is too close to the issue and probably quite pissed of [sic]. I think Keith needs to be very, very careful in how he handles this. I’d be willing to check over anything he puts together.

Jones forwarded this email to Briffa.

On 17th June 2002 Briffa wrote to Dr. Edward Cook about a letter involving Esper and Michael Mann:

I have just read this letter—and I think it is crap. I am sick to death of Mann stating his reconstruction represents the tropical area just because it contains a few (poorly temperature representative) tropical series. He is just as capable of regressing these data against any other “target” series, such as the increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage he has produced over the last few years, and … (better say no more)”

Cook responds;

“We both know the probable flaws in Mike’s recon (reconstruction), particularly as it relates to the tropical stuff…. It is puzzling to me that a guy as bright as Mike would be so unwilling to evaluate his own work a bit more objectively.

Apparently, Mann even scared his fellow CRU conspirators as one noted on October 26, 2003,

“Anyway, there’s going to be a lot of noise on this one, and knowing Mann’s very thin skin I am afraid he will react strongly, unless he has learned (as I hope he has) from the past….”

In a Washington Post article, Mann said the content of the emails “doesn’t alter evidence for climate change.” This claim is a standard deflection that exploits the fact most people don’t know the science or how much climate changes naturally. As a result, they can report a natural change as unnatural and by implication caused by humans. The real issue is the cause of climate change. The emails revealed how the CRU gang used deception to prove it was human produced CO2. But the mainstream media brushed it off, ignored it, or deliberately played along with the CRU denials.

A good example of the latter was the action of the Associated Press (AP) identified by a Washington Times editorial titled,

“Biased Reporting on Climategate – Associated Press coverage raises eyebrows.”

They wrote,

“There’s a big difference between saying that there is insufficient evidence to determine if falsification occurred – and that there should be an investigation – and saying, as AP did, “Science not faked.”

The Times is wrong because it’s incorrect to say there is insufficient evidence, but it is still a measure of poor journalism.

The mainstream media chose to ignore the devastating importance of the emails. They compounded this failure by claiming there was nothing of significance. It gives the lie to their claim that they are society’s watchdog.

Most haven’t read the emails or summarily dismiss them because of political bias. Journalist Clive Crook illustrated an open mind, albeit on second look.

“In my previous post on Climategate I blithely said that nothing in the climate science email dump surprised me much. Having waded more deeply over the weekend I take that back. The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering.”

Later Crook wrote about the investigations into the emails,

I had hoped, not very confidently, that the various Climategate inquiries would be severe. This would have been a first step towards restoring confidence in the scientific consensus. But no, the reports make things worse. At best they are mealy-mouthed apologies; at worst they are patently incompetent and even wilfully wrong. The climate-science establishment, of which these inquiries have chosen to make themselves a part, seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause.

The mainstream media willfully ignored the massive deception just as they did the political exploitation of climate science. In fact, most led or joined attacks on scientists who dared to point out the problems. They’re still doing it directly or by their silence. There’s no excuse for missing one of the biggest stories in history. It proves the adage that there are none so blind as those who will not see.

The Evidence is Unavoidable

Understanding science is not required to understand what the emails expose. Any objective reading counters the claim they are “normal banter between colleagues.” Just a few examples illustrate the environment among the inside group.

On 22 November 1996 from Geoff Jenkins (UK Met Office) to Phil Jones,

“Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with early release of information (via Oz), “inventing” the December monthly value, letters to Nature etc etc? I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year, simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.” “We feed this selectively to Nick Nuttall (Executive Director of UNEP) (who has had this in the past and seems now to expect special treatment) so that he can write an article for the silly season. We could also give this to Neville Nicholls (IPCC lead author and Australian Met Bureau employee.)??”

They are talking about releasing an annual global temperature before the year is over. Hardly scientific or responsible bureaucratic behavior, but they think deceiving the public is “fun.” It is a practice still going on.

On March 11, 2003, Mann acknowledged they silenced skeptics by criticizing them for not having peer-reviewed publications. Mann wrote,

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board.”

On 24 April 2003 Wigley was upset about Hans von Storch’s editorial role and proposes to mislead the publishers,

“One approach is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their journal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation under the guise of refereed work. I use the word ‘perceived’ here, since whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about — it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts.”

On 21 Jan 2005 Jones wrote to Wigley about requests under the Freedom of Information Act,

“Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.”

Why would he need to hide?

On 8 July 2004 Jones to Mann,

I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

The malfeasance is especially bad because the role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is to review all the literature.

On 2 February 2005 from Jones to Mann

“If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.”

On 29 April 2007 Briffa to Mann; in a comment that reinforces the idea that Briffa is troubled by what was going on.

“I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same.”

The journal “Nature”, apparently complicit in the corruption of the peer-review process, revealed its bias when it editorialized.

“If there are benefits to the e-mail theft, one is to highlight yet again the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts. Governments and institutions need to provide tangible assistance for researchers facing such a burden.”

This position contradicts their editorial guidelines that say in part,

An inherent principle of publication is that others should be able to replicate and build upon the authors’ published claims. Therefore, a condition of publication in a Nature journal is that authors are required to make materials, data and associated protocols promptly available to readers without preconditions. (Their emphasis).

These quotes are not normal discourse between academics or the goal of scientific research and publication by any stretch of the imagination. Any of the quotes is sufficient to trigger further investigative journalism. It certainly is enough to show their work that underpinned the major findings of the IPCC is totally inadequate for the policy recommendations made at the time and now being pushed forward in Paris.

The emails delayed Copenhagen because COP acts on the information the IPCC provides in the Summary For Policymakers. However, it didn’t stop the juggernaut of the political agenda. Some of the main reasons were effective public relations, lack of public understanding, but primarily the abject failure of the mainstream media. Even if they understood what was going on, they didn’t want to know and certainly were not going to report the truth. Even the brief examples in this article should force people to re-examine the false science created by the CRU and the IPCC.

Note: this article was updated about 30 minutes after publication to fix a missing block quotation formatting.

Advertisements

152 thoughts on “The Need To Revisit The Climategate Revelations To Counter Mainstream Media Failure And The Paris Climate Conference Plans

    • Well, donations have been low lately !!! What else can a socialist do ?? Take from the rich and give to the , …well,….. the other rich !!!

  1. Thanks Dr. Ball. I think it is about time to release the rest of the emails. Certain people did get the key to the encrypted remaining emails. Perhaps mr. “Crook” is somewhat right about a conspiracy of non- disclosure of the “in-group”. Surely there cannot be any reason for waiting longer with making “this data and materials” available for public scrutiny.

    • Joe Prins, if I remember correctly, there are something like 220,000 e-mails. What good do you think would be served by releasing all of them? The only reason many people cared about the first two releases is the released e-mails were pre-filtered. That hasn’t happened again because there just aren’t that many e-mails left that people have found very interesting. You can say:

      Surely there cannot be any reason for waiting longer with making “this data and materials” available for public scrutiny.

      But yeah, there are. There are tons of e-mails that have nothing of interest in them. Some of the e-mails contain personal information. Not violating the privacy of these people for no purpose is a good thing.

      If people had certain things they were looking for, it’d be easy to extract e-mails for them. I’d be willing to do that for people. I’ve seen e-mails in there I think are interesting. I’m sure there are others I haven’t seen. I’d be happy to help people find them.

      I’m not going to help people read every single e-mail though. There’s just no point.

  2. The climate computer gamers should have put the eMails on Hillary Clinton’s server, which she has wiped clean with a cloth.

    If the Coming Climate Change Catastrophe Cult cared about science, rather than politics, they would be celebrating the improvement of Earth’s climate since the early 1800s — and wanting more CO2 in the air (for green plants), and more warming (for us humans).

    The climate has been improving for a few hundred years, unless you prefer cold weather and slow growing green plants.

    For the past 40 years the leftists, who hate good news, have been bellowing to anyone who will listen that global warming will end life on earth as we know it … assuming there is any life left (because DDT, acid rain, hole in the ozone layer, etc. were supposed to end life as we know it first !)

    When it comes to climate change, it’s all about politicians scaring people to seize more power over their lives and businesses — this is the slow, incremental “road” to socialism / Marxism.

    I’m very sorry to see the pope get involved:
    He supposedly wants to help the poor, but he criticizes capitalism, which lifts far more people out of poverty than socialism, is against the use of cheap high density energy sources, which poor people desperately need to rise out of poverty, and against more CO2 in the air, which greens the Earth and helps feed more poor people. That’s three strikes = he seems confused about how to help the poor.

    I guess I can understand how a believer in non-science creationism could get excited about the non-science climate computer games, and their scary predictions.

    One religion was growing (environmentalism), while the other (Catholicism) was shrinking, so perhaps the pope wanted to get his share of the growing environmental “religion” ?

    • Capitalism has saved and improved more lives than Socialists could ever dream of !!! Energy creates jobs, energy creates food, energy creates DREAMS !!!

      • MarkW, I see perfect socialism as a “Golden Rule” world, where everyone puts others before self, voluntarily cooperates and gains intrinsic satisfaction from a philanthropic goal in life.
        Obviously, human nature precludes this entirely, and only in the world of religion does this concept exist.

      • Thing is if you ice everyone except peasants and the folks who mindlessly bang things together, that’s all you got left.

    • Do you have any evidence that the Pope believes in creationism? Or do you just assume that all Christians do.
      If that is your stance, you really should actually talk to some Christians.

      • If you don’t believe in creationism then you are admitting the bible contains ridiculous fairy stories ( Noah’s Ark, anyone?)
        Religion ain’t science. It’s just superstition.

      • The Catholic Church has acknowledged for a very long time such things as evolution, the Big Bang, the age of the Earth being about 4.5 billion years…
        The Catholic church are not fundamentalist bible thumping literalists.
        Seriously…never have ben really.
        In fact, the church is one of the biggest benefactors of science in the world, and man of faith have made many of the biggest discoveries in science.
        And I am not only talking about Gregor Mendel.
        I am not a religious person, but you have to discern fact from fancy.

      • I’m living in a world where scientific investigation has led to the conclusion that the universe I find myself in just popped into existence, and is so unthinkably conducive to my existence, that the best scientists can come up with is mega-gazillions of universes (for which there is zero observed evidence), to render ours “plausibly” not designed.

        And, scientific investigation has led to the conclusion that even the simplest theoretically possible life (billions of hyper organized molecules) is so unthinkably unlikely to just come together by chance, that the best explanation for how it first came into existence is; Who knows? (but it wasn’t designed, that’s fer sure)

        And, scientific investigation has led to the conclusion that at the quantum level, there are strict “rules” governing all events, which make no sense at all to the best minds on the planet.

        I can go on, with the large scale symmetry of matter in the known universe (detected by three different satellite missions because the first and second just had to be wrong) which is called the “axis of evil” by some cosmologists/astrophysicists, ’cause we’re sitting at the center of it, and that don’t jive with the random chance alone world-view . . With an “explosion” of body designs that appear suddenly in the fossil record, fully “evolved” with zero observed evidence they existed in less “evolved” states before that . . With virtually every planet and moon in the solar system being anomalous according to the best “understanding” of what ought to be here . . etc.etc . . but why bother? if I’m speaking to hyper-dogmatic thinkers who will accept any explanation for what exists in reality-land, no matter how unfounded/illogical, as long as it keeps the God hypothesis at bay . . while calling those who don’t belong to their anti-god religion; superstitious.

        I don’t consider much of what I see here scientific anything. And if you carry out your (to me) self-righteous rationalizing just a bit further, you too could see the glorious wisdom of saving the world from the dopey over-breeding monkeys who can’t shake their primitive superstitions, like the ever so clever ones have, . it seems to me anyway.

    • The common denominator in both is apocalyptic thinking, with “them” in charge of bestowing redemption for our “sins.”

      • Yep, Goldrider –

        De Profundis.

        ‘The common denominator in both is apocalyptic thinking with “them” in charge of bestowing redemption for our “sins.” ‘
        ____

        ‘Our Sins?’

        the need for redemption was built up careless.
        ____

        ‘I’d like to have back my former live’ – mainstream burnout.

        Here we go. Hans.

    • Apparently, Pope Che the First doesn’t comprehend the Biblical truism “By their fruit shall ye know them.” He sanctimoniously tells us to replace capitalism with socialism while he instructs us how wrong we are to resist illegal Latin immigrants who flee poverty to partake of capitalist fruit in the US.

    • One religion was growing (environmentalism), while the other (Catholicism) was shrinking, so perhaps the pope wanted to get his share of the growing environmental “religion” ?

      Sorry but religions allow questioning of what they acknowledge to be an issue of faith not reason. Only cults demand unquestioning obedience and belief.

    • Richard Greene – I’d flash a yellow card at the comment, “I guess I can understand how a believer in non-science creationism…” It’s unnecessary and distracts from the real point.

      Plus, those of us who are more agnostic about modern evolutionary theory don’t appreciate being considered “non-scientific”…since it is the very things we observe (as well as those things we don’t – the unobservable) that make us question the dogma of evolution. And, let’s be honest here, much like climate skepticism is treated in the world at large, any questioning of evolution by the religious faithful is met with sneering contempt for our “un-scientific” ignorance. It’s almost as if you think evolution is “settled science”…

      rip

  3. Best quotes:
    “I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same.”

    “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.”

    “The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering.”

  4. Many years ago I was responsible for responding to FOI requests for a government ministry.

    If I even caught a whiff of someone “hiding” anything, I would have threatened them with charges. Seriously, that was part of my job, and the law backed me up.

    It is quite simply illegal and anyone who actually put something like that in an email isn’t competent enough to call themselves a professional anything.

  5. Reblogged this on The Arts Mechanical and commented:
    The story that continues to pushed under the rug. The thing about climate science is that unless it cleans up it’s act, it will destroy any integrity the discipline has and there will be splashing all over other science disciplines who have repeated and magnified the falsehoods and cargo cult science that the climategate clowns have done.

  6. We can’t allow bullies to win. They love it when we play by the rules, because that process takes too long to clear up their messes. Short memories seem to smooth over their aggression. Thanks for the reminders.

    • I have been asking myself the same question. There was a lot of talk about them for a long time, then all of a sudden it went quiet all over the blogosphere. What happened? Legal threats or what?

      • I think they may have tried to bait the press into coming after the piéce de résistance. But of course the press can not be enticed with something that would shatter their own sacred beliefs.

    • What makes you think anything “squelched all discussion of” anything? As far as I know, people stopped talking about the Climategate e-mails because most of the e-mails are boring. I’ve read thousands and thousands of the unreleased e-mails, and most are mind-numbingly dull. I don’t know what you’d want to talk about.

      • As far as I know, people stopped talking about the Climategate e-mails because most of the e-mails are boring. I’ve read thousands and thousands of the unreleased e-mails, and most are mind-numbingly dull. I don’t know what you’d want to talk about.

        I don’t suppose there’s any chance of us ‘mere mortals’ deciding for ourselves.

        Thought not.

  7. We should all buy shares in white flag manufacturers as our governments have surrendered unconditionally to the Green Blob.

    Well, maybe not quite yet, but certainly after the upcoming meeting of Paris-ites.

  8. The obtuse handling of ClimateGate by the Warmists and their compliant media contacts reminds me of a report I heard today on what Nancy Pelosi thinks about the Planned Parenthood video(s) scandal.

    She said she had complete confidence in PP, and that there is broad support in society for the harvesting and sale of fetal organs and tissue. When asked if she had watched the videos, she said no she had not, because they are false and misleading (somehow knowing this without having watched them). She said there was no need to investigate PP or the way they handle the harvesting and sale of fetal organs and tissue, but that there should be an immediate investigation into those who collected the video evidence and how they turned something innocent into something so false and misleading.

    • I’d like to see N. Pelosi burned at the stake. It is the dirtiest ‘business’ in the world, and I am an atheist. Not surprised at her response on PP or her siding with GloBull Warming.

      • ” You must pass the bill before you can see whats in it ” !!!…liberal logic !!!,/i>
        It would probably help if you ate it before you passed it. That way there would be no doubt what was in it.

  9. “In a Washington Post article, Mann said the content of the emails “doesn’t alter evidence for climate change.” This claim is a standard deflection that exploits the fact most people don’t know the science or how much climate changes naturally. As a result, they can report a natural change as unnatural and by implication caused by humans.”

    The upshot of this is that any of the warmists can state in an interview, and even testify under oath without any implication of lying, since using the phrase ‘Climate Change’ can be taken two ways. They can always be ‘clean’, when pressured, by staing ‘I was referring to natural climate change.

    This supports my continued mission for all skeptics to use Global Warming in lieu of climate change, even in court. Then they can be caught in a lie.

    • “In a Washington Post article, Mann said the content of the emails “doesn’t alter evidence for climate change.”
      Michael Mann is right – it doesn’t alter evidence for climate change, because there isn’t any.(Let me clarify that by stating that I mean catastrophic climate change). Name one region in the US where there has been significant climate change.

    • “This supports my continued mission for all skeptics to use Global Warming in lieu of climate change, even in court. Then they can be caught in a lie”.
      KOKODA: I prefer to use the phrase “Do you mean CO2 induced global warming” or just CO2 induced global warming. .

  10. kokoda says:

    This supports my continued mission for all skeptics to use Global Warming in lieu of climate change…

    Agree 100%. I constantly hold their feet to the fire by using ‘global warming’, even when the alarmist gang won’t. They hide behind “climate change” because they were completely wrong about global warming.

    The Orwellian term “climate change” is so ridiculous that it can mean anything. The pejorative insult “climate change denier” sounds preposterous to any thinking person, which is probably why the alarmist cult always uses it. Especially Mann.

  11. 06:25 September 28, 2009: email 1254147614

    Tom Wigley to Phil Jones:

    If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degrees Celsius, then this would be significant for the global average—but we’d still have to explain the land blip.

    I’ve chosen 0.15 degrees Celsius here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and I think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip …

    It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip?”

    [My bold]

    http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/1254147614.txt

    • Clear evidence that they have deliberately conspired to falsify the temperature record to fit a desired narrative. They decided what the data needed to look like before they started, knew that the ocean temps would be easier to manipulate than the land, and how much they could fudge the ocean numbers before they became internally inconsistent with the land record that wasn’t as easy to rewrite.

    • That was what I have always considered the most damning e-mail in Climategate, since it shows exactly how “adjustments” to data are made. You didn’t quote the entire e-mail, but the rest goes on to say that the proposed .15C adjustment makes the story that that Northern Hemisphere temperatures were being cooled by aerosols, while Southern Hemisphere temperatures were steadily warming more credible. (Note that there is more land in the NH so the suppression of the sea temperature 1940s “blip” provides more effect on a positive SH trend. while the lower NH trend is explained away by aerosols when really it is because the ocean adjustment just doesn’t affect NH temps as much as it does the SH temps).

      You also left out the part “one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via some common forcing or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). This parenthetical shows that the adjustment is made up to lend credence to some unknown physical climate relationship, and the explanation of what that relationship might be is just casually dismissed.

      As a whole, its inconceivable to me that this e-mail does not show that these two “climate scientists” are seriously proposing the fabrication of data to fit their preconceived notions of how the climate should behave, and goes a long way to explain my belief that the term “climate scientist” is damned near an oxymoron.

  12. “…Nick Nuttall
    … Neville Nicholls…”
    What is this? I’ve heard nonesuch nonsense since November ninth. Alliteratively asking.

  13. So now what ?

    It’s good for your endorphins to validate the foundation of lies that global warming is built on, but at this point that’s about all it’s worth.
    You are right, they are wrong.

    The rich have made a ton of money by investing in the ruse. Have they squeezed enough juice from the current lemon ?

    Follow the money. They beat you at the science ruse game, sucked in the pope for some extra umpph and defunded the IMF concerning funding for future coal fired plants. The BRICs are now the primary source of funding for that type of power.

    So how do you defeat an opponent who plays by a less noble game than you do ?

    If you play by their rules you are likely to lose because you are new to playing in the mud. Besides, it’s easy to become like them if you are not careful. If you are going to be muddy, do it only briefly. It’s dangerous.

    What are your choices ?

    1. Be strong, be clear, be succinct in continuing to point out fallacy and please don’t belittle yourselves by being petty and sarcastic. You lose followers.

    2. Do good science. It will matter someday when the deceit is known by a sufficient mass. Do you realize how much your opponent has undermined critical thinking and the scientific method in schools ? They are smarter warriors than you. If you teach to teach with fearless integrity. If you speak, do the same. Be smart, don’t be a martyr and trust that facts will make their way to the surface.

    3. Make money. Organize. Provide an alternative to the madness. You cannot compete with the disinformation campaign unless u offer an alternative for the rich who are making crazy money from this ruse.

    Why did George Soros invest over a billion in coal at this depressed price ? Does he see that the juice from the agw ruse is waning and that they rebound of fossil fuels is coming ?

    Envision the headlines 5 years from now. We are currently at the low in commodity cycles, a good time to buy. George knows this. He probably knows agw is nonsense and he knows somebody is going to want his coal.

    What if you were part of an organization who increased their ability to disseminate solid science while also making money for the rich. Do you think they’d pay more attention to what you had to say ? Would your organization become more influential ?

    The speed with which you would attract rich money will astound you if you offer an alternative that is based on fact and a good ROR. Nobody wants to be the stupid one at a rich party.

    You will defeat the misinformation campaign if you anticipate their moves and offer a better alternative.

    This webpage has done a marvelous job of raising awareness and creating a forum for like minded critical thinkers.

    Take the next step.

    • You will only get your RICO when it becomes profitable to scapegoat people for the ruse. The truly rich and powerful won’t go down. They rarely do.

      You have to offer a more profitable fact (because you have integrity) that will attract the movers of society (who don’t want to be embarrassed for being stupid).

      Once that happens I trust (hope) that your integrity will remain sound and you won’t seek a rush from the kill.

  14. Revisiting CLIMATEGATE will not be enough to counter all the climate misinformation and fear mongering news that is being generated in the media. The basic flaw of the global warming science remains and needs to be highlighted over and over again to the media , namely ” recent global warming was not primarily due to man . Despite rising co2 levels , the global temperatures have not risen as predicted but have been flat contrary to the global warming science. The threat has been over stated through significant exaggeration and worst case scenarios which have not materialized as predicted. The science is far from settled and remains unsuitable for significant world wide public policy formulation..”

    • No it will not be enough.

      Even repeating that the data is fudged and the temperature hasn’t increased nearly what was expected despite increases in CO2 just will not register enough to shift the momentum.

      The ruse has been in place long enough for entrenched business models to take hold. Have you noticed urban planning with thoughts to flood protection ? How about insurance companies ? Let’s not forget the financial houses that have banked on ROR linked to alternative energy fashions. How about lenders who see an aging energy infrastructure and a push to update it so that it can accept global warming justified alternative energy fiascos.

      Check. The ruse.

      It’s good to continue to counter the fallacies in as simple a way as possible, but it is not enough to stop the business wave. Its planting seeds but it is slow.

      In the mind of your opposition, they are accomplishing a redistribution of wealth associated with fossil fuels. They don’t believe in global warming. It’s a means to an end. I’ve read years of posts here. You already know this to be true. The sad but true thing is that the common man is likely okay (at least not bothered since it doesnt even rank in the top ten concerns) with the ruse because they have not experienced a significant drop in their standard of living. The rich man has likely gotten some significant windfall because of it and is equally okay with it.

      So on the ruse goes. Nobody really feeling any pain and insiders laughing all the way to the bank.

      Your opposition has checked you.

      What is your counter ?
      Will you have to wait for a little ice age ?

      This is a public relations battle and most dissenters are fighting it with facts. Bernays would be the first to advise you that most choices are made on emotion despite the vaunted intellectual skills we think we have.

      Cigarettes and the woman’s right to vote ?

      • Knute:

        In the mind of your opposition, they are accomplishing a redistribution of wealth associated with fossil fuels. They don’t believe in global warming. It’s a means to an end. . .

        This is a very interesting observation, if somewhat opaque. Are these business elites simply riding the theological wave of ‘climate change’ alarm, helping themselves to the spoils of government lunacy? Or are they themselves the myth-makers, helping to create the new planet-wide eco-socialist utopia?

        Either way, the powerful elites (in government, business, academia, media) are calling the shots, while the rest of us complain about scientific chicanery and rising electric bills. At best, we nibble at the heels of the powerful. You seem to suggest turning to public relations, but this is far beyond the means of most of us.

        Interesting that George Soros is investing in coal, while at the same time funding a thousand little left-wing ‘activist’ organizations that at the drop of a hat will demonstrate for ‘climate justice’.

        Now if one of the PACs supporting a Presidential candidate were to focus on the implications of this hypocrisy, and if that candidate were to make fighting the ‘climate-change’ hoax the the center of his campaign, promising investigations, prosecutions, and an end to ‘climate funding and ‘clean energy’ corporatism. . .

        It’s worth some letters, at least. AFAIK, the only declared skeptic in the race is Sen. Cruz, but there may be others.

        /Mr Lynn

      • I apologize for being opaque.
        I’ll do better.

        Follow the money. Follow the very nature of competition itself. Those who are not in the 1% don’t really matter in determining the course of this game. They don’t have the wealth and whatever power they have is attached to the tit of the wealthy.

        Imagine competing groups of wealthy people who are bothered that one group has more money than they have. Energy holdings have long been as vaunted a source of money as land itself so its only natural for some wealthy groups to compete with those who have attained wealth via land and energy.

        I can’t tell you that the ruse began and then the money followed, but one doesn’t happen without the other so it is irrelevant.

        The game was never about the ruse and was always about the money.

        What’s the next move ?

        I think they see that more money is to be had in the ruse AND on the other side of the play. They are not done with it. What is predictable is that those who want to make more money off the ruse will be on the side that continues to receive profits associated with the ruse.

        Ask yourself this :

        As the BRICs fund new coal plants and the IMF backs off, who will be the countless vendors who receive that funding to do the work ?

        I bet you a fat steak dinner that the wealthy won’t miss out on that “growth” opportunity no matter what side of the fence they fall concerning AGW (Soros was first).

        Don’t dismay.
        Practice and preach critical thinking.
        Find a way to offer wealth from your critical thinking conclusions.

        Was that clear enough ?

      • John

        I feel for you and the dedicated members of this forum. Please don’t equate my bluntness (I was asked to not be opaque) with disrespect. It is because I respect you that I am blunt.

        The purpose in my posting after years of reading your forum is to encourage you to pursue more effective strategies. You have created a well viewed forum, but are stuck.

        I believe that your supporters want the world’s standard of living to rise. By and large, your opponents want the same.

        Your opposition fundamentally believes that it is impossible for 6B people to achieve what the west has without destroying the world (unsustainable). This is a long brewing belief. Indeed, there are kernels of truth in the belief as few would condone lung choking atmospheres, lifeless waterways and other obviously unacceptable conditions. I believe that your forum also finds these conditions unacceptable.

        The difference lies in the following observation. Your forum thinks that critical thinking based solutions can indeed elevate the world’s poor to a better standard of living. Your opposition used to think that was true as well. Discipline was exerted by both sides in exposing half truths, exaggeration as well as preventing paralysis thru perfection.

        What happenned ?

        Your opposition grew and shifted from a backlash. Trust that critical thinking (CT) would be honored was broken and they became radicalized. They tossed aside CT and immersed themselves in the creation of special interest NGOs. Ironically, they learned how to do that from the captains of industry. I’m not sure who the captains of industry learned it from. Frankly, it doesn’t matter. What matters is they are both doing it.

        So now we have a condition where the buffering capability of CT has been rejected by the captains of industry thru special interest influence as well as the captains of sustainability thru special interest NGOs.

        Two heavyweights are trading blows while the sweat and blood of ineffective solutions cause even more to suffer. The rich are getting richer and poor are getting bamboozled.

        Critical thinking skills are essential to establishing identification of real problems and consequently real solutions. The challenge is as follows :

        How can you present CT as a discipline which replaces the appeal of rabid emotions annnnd offers a path to an increased standard of living for as many of the world as possible ?

        This will be an ever shifting endeavor as human emotion is an inescapable delight, both loathe and admired. We shouldn’t look to eliminate emotion in favor of logic. We should value both. To think and emote is to be human.

        Perhaps the next step is an NGO of your own. Perhaps the NGO targets a geographical community that wants to raise it’s standard of living. Perhaps you can demonstrate (market) how CT based choices can achieve this without falling prone to half truths, exaggeration and paralysis via perfection.

        One idea to counter the dysfunctional morass is likely to attract other like minded fellows.

        My suggestion is a thinking out loud one. It’s fraught with imperfection and meant to spur other creative options.

        I want you to succeed because you have held to the fundamental CT discipline that will be required to steer us from this polarization.

      • Knute:

        Perhaps the next step is an NGO of your own. Perhaps the NGO targets a geographical community that wants to raise its standard of living. Perhaps you can demonstrate (market) how CT [‘critical thinking’] based choices can achieve this without falling prone to half truths, exaggeration and paralysis via perfection. . .

        [my emphasis]

        Not sure what you mean by ‘critical thinking’, nor do I think most people will know what it means, but please see my comment below and the link therein, where I suggested the idea of a nonprofit (or NGO) devoted to Progress and Civilization, in contradistinction to the neo-Luddite ideology underlying the CAGW movement:

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/28/the-need-to-revisit-the-climategate-revelations-to-counter-mainstream-media-failure-and-the-paris-climate-conference-plans/#comment-2037919

        Not that the elites you mention necessarily subscribe to the nihilistic ideology of the enviros, but they have seized the opportunity to capitalize on it, to the ultimate detriment of us all. A counter-movement based on Progress can appeal to emotional ideals as well as logic, and ‘critical thinking’.

        /Mr Lynn

      • Lynn

        First off. Wow 400 plus comments to your survey. I wish I had the time to categorize them but like most of the world’s busy people I drew a generalized impression. Numerically, 2 out of 3 folks thought it was a good idea. This reader’s takeaway from the comments was a negative impression of the idea fraught with reservation based on it being doomed, a recreation of heartland, an idea with not enough detail or just generally a level of effort beyond the casual fact seeker, science admirer.

        So, good idea in a fuzzy new toy kind of way but not enough to overwhelmingly grip folks.

        Btw, when I refer to critical thinking I am referring to the art/discipline of ferreting out bias, also known as fallecious forms of argument. Many members of this forum do a fine job of identifying and rooting bias out.

        Allow me to toss you this thought. An NGO is nothing more than a special interest group. Same as those that live on K Street in DC.

        Do you find it fascinating that the special interest groups that lobby for industry are vilified while the special interest groups that lobby for social justice causes are not ? I think understanding why one is vilified and the other is not can provide insight to what niche an critical thinking NGO can capture.

        Visually, I see them as extremes of the pendulum. In the mind of the public, industry special interest groups represent companies that make money for the corporate good, the shareholder. Most people don’t own shares so they don’t benefit from that special interest endeavor. Mostly, they see it as a corrupt part of the system. On the other hand, social justice NGOs give the moral high ground impression that they serve the disenfranchised and help them stick it to the corrupt bad guys. Right or wrong true or false, that is the perception of the general populace.

        What if an NGO established itself as an UNBIASED as possible reviewer of energy policy and/or environmental initiatives. I offer those 2 because they apear to be the most talked about issues on this webpage.

        Do you remember a magazine called Consumers Digest ? Perhaps the niche for your NGO is the same as Consumer Digest was for durable goods. Of course, I’m not suggesting a magazine, but instead an NGO which promotes itself as not bound to political correctness, is fair, reasonable and balanced and identifies bias leaving it for the reader to take or leave.

        Identifying bias is HARD WORK. It’s why people don’t do it. We are too busy. We gloss over the illogical and let the nonsense imprint our brains. Even the smartest of us succumb to it. What if your NGO became the preferred group for an unbiased review of everything from proposed regulations and policy to the soundness of a new wind farm in happilandia.

        Do you know that investigative news shows pay research teams to identify those biases and either copy that style or prep writers for refuting them ? Campaign managers do the same.

        Imagine if your NGO did it without the spin ?

        I know many people who would be drawn to it just to be in the know and to make their life easier.

        Btw, Heartland has not garnered a larger audience because they are perceived as supporting the Republicans. You can’t achieve the above if you are affiliated with a political party. Too tough to claim an unbiased approach.

        Not to get to far ahead, but the NGO that can provide that niche and show evidence of pilot projects that succeed by applying an unbiased approach would gather even more steam.

        Whatever you decide to do, please continue the tone and content of this webpage. Good things will grow from it.

        Thanks

      • Knute wrote;

        “Btw, when I refer to critical thinking I am referring to the art/discipline of ferreting out bias, also known as fallecious forms of argument.”

        To me, a non-scientist, the bulk of the fallacious forms of argument spun up around this CAWG issue, are variations on “argument from authority”. Simply put, the “scientific community” is a vested interest group, that has exploited in an habitual way the illusion that scientists are magically immune from bias, fear, greed, foolishness, laxness, etc, etc.

        A false idol has been erected, to put it in layman’s terms, through what to me are natural human tendencies toward self-interest primarily, and some people are using that false idol to advance various agendas that exploit a myth about unscrupulous folks being unable to earn degrees in scientific disciplines, or gain status/influence in the “community”, which to me is utterly silly. IQ does not equal moral fiber, or even resistance to folly, since a person can rationalize anything all the better if they are more intelligent than most.

        Hence, it seems to me the myth, and the false idol it sustains, must be dispensed with completely by those who would resist these dependent agendas. Science (in the community sense) must be psychologically dethroned, and science in the “experimental philosophy” sense, must be restored as a “faith based” belief system (religion), because it obviously is, I say. What Knute calls critical thinking cannot proceed in these realms until this is fully (and shamelessly) acknowledged, I advise.

      • Here here … we are ALL prone to bias. The commitment to elevate discussion begins with that admission.

        If you couple the admission that we are all prone to bias and observe the pattern of what type of biases people are prone to execute, you can learn valuable insight into human behavoir. From that insight you can identify what they want and treat that knowledge with respect or abuse them.

        You can make the monkey jump whenever you want or help the monkey become aware why they jump … seemingly without even “thinking”.

        Powerful stuff.

        The CAGW movement is part of the social justice revolution. See it for that and you’ll get a better understanding of why scientific debate over fudged measurements may be helpful as a tool, but is weak compared to the other stimulus the monkey is being manipulated by.

        Case in point. The comedy of the pope being a significant player in the debate concerning CAGW should make you hmmmm. He’s provided no additional evidence but did throw enough red meat around to excite the monkey that he was being victimized. The monkey thinks the pope is his advocate so he doesn’t ask if the pope is right, he’s just glad the pope is gonna give him something he doesn’t have.

        No where, no how, not even for a minute does the admirer of the pope question if CAGW is real.

        1B supporters … just like that.
        Amazing.

        It better get cold soon or we will go broke from the wasted allocation of limited resources.

    • Knute, a clarification: Please note that the 2014 WUWT post on “Results of my poll on forming a skeptic organization. . .”
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/25/results-of-my-poll-on-forming-a-skeptic-organization-plus-some-commentary/
      was written by our host, Anthony Watts, not I. FWIW, I was directing you to a comment I contributed to the discussion thread,
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/25/results-of-my-poll-on-forming-a-skeptic-organization-plus-some-commentary/#comment-1621368
      which summarized a discussion a few of us had back in 2009 about creating a ‘Climate Realist’ organization and/or website called Terra Home, which would promote environmental conservation, progress, and the benefits of expanding modern civilization.

      That said, I think your idea,

      . . . What if your NGO became the preferred group for an unbiased review of everything from proposed regulations and policy to the soundness of a new wind farm in happilandia.

      is an excellent one. Of course, ‘unbiased’ is to some degree in the eye of the beholder. To the Green ideologues anyone advocating responsible coal mining is on a mission to destroy ‘the Planet’, while off-shore wind farms that will drive up electric bills for average people are promoting ‘climate justice’, whatever that may mean. In point of fact, an honest cost-benefit analysis will always have to factor in the goals of any policy or initiative—will it further some Marxist notion of ‘social justice’, or will it further the ideals of the American Founders: “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”?

      Which is not to say that one cannot perform a rational cost-benefit analysis that even takes different ideological ends into account— just that one must be transparent and above-board about it.

      That said, I’ve no idea how to go about creating such an organization. Lord knows there are thousands of honest bloggers and commentators typing away on the Internet, mostly unread and unheralded; many contribute to this blog. But an NGO wants time, work, and capital, and the very word ‘organization’ means people getting together in a more meaningful way than just trading comments on a blog. At the very least, it wants membership, not just passers-by.

      I’m open to talking: RepletewRue AT Yahoo DOT com

      /Mr Lynn

      • “But an NGO wants time, work, and capital, and the very word ‘organization’ means people getting together in a more meaningful way than just trading comments on a blog. At the very least, it wants membership, not just passers-by.”

        Easier than you think and perhaps less organized than you might require. Try it here. Post an article of interest. Ask the group to just IDENTIFY weak appeals (Latin identification not reqd).

        Begin to create a compendium of articles reviewed in such a matter. Make them Web searchable. Track interest via Google stats.

        Wash rinse repeat.

        You don’t have to represent any game plan if all you are doing is making people aware of simple mind_______ such as ad homs, cherries and appeals to fear.

        Btw, Google is attempting to change their search script to allow things that are validated facts to rise in your searches.

        Imagine if your simple review made its way into the Google BS – o – meter.

  15. Goldman Strikes Again: Did A Probe Into “Global Warming” Fraud Cost A Prime Minister’s Job
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-26/did-goldman-sachs-sacrifice-australias-prime-minister-his-doubts-about-global-warmin

    This is a pretty good read. Makes me wonder if Australia is going to end up with a cap-and-trade program. Makes me also wonder if the US is going to get one as well since I just read that Obama is going to go it alone on climate…

    I once read (I think in Bloomberg, I have the link if somebody wants me to post it) that the estimated worth of the global cap-and-trade market is $20 trillion per year. It’s only logical that the bankers want in on the profit. They already have carbon derivatives ready. And these carbon derivatives were created by some of the same ilk that gave us the derivatives in the subprime mess.

    (Bloomberg link: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ar0X_FWXo1ag&refer=energy)

    • Turnbull(Coat) will be under extreme pressure to bring in an ETS or cap-and-trade. His banker mates want in on the action. Turnbull will take an ETS to the 2016 election.

    • Cap-and-trade can be done on a state by state basis. It doesn’t require a federal/national mandate/program.

      State by state cap-and-trade is known as sub-national cap-and trade and is already setup in a few states.

      • And in the US your opponents are setting up the case law for something called disparate impact. If Texas CO2 wafts into its neighboring state, local populaces will be able to file suit for disparate impact.

        The counter for this ploy would be for the CO2 violating state to have such a robust standard of living that nobody wants to live ‘over there’ where energy is expensive, food ain’t cheap and people generally are not that bright.

  16. Tim, your “ClimateGate sampling” contains the following reference:

    ‘ For Michael Mann, oh, what a tangled web: In a 2003 ClimateGate email, he claims that :the proxy reconstructions show the post-1980 warming” ‘

    This is quite impossible because there was no post-1980 warming. There was fake warming, yes, but no way will it become part of a proxy reconstruction. Fact is, there was no warming at all in the eighties because the hiatus of the eighties and nineties covered that time slot. I discovered it in 2008 while using satellite data for research on my book “What Warming?” The lack of warming lasted from 1979 to 1997, an 18 year stretch like the current one. The reason you don’t know about this hiatus is that fake warming was created to cover it up. I discovered that HadCRUT3 was involved in this fake warming business and even put a warming about it in the preface to the book when it came out. But absolutely nothing happened. I kept bringing it up periodically and finally a week a ago one of the readers unearthed an old NASA document from 1997 proving that NASA knew about this hiatus. The general implication is that those warmists wishing to prove that the current hiatus does not exist have one more hiatus to deal with and that is probably more than they can handle. Secondly, the two hiatuses jointly cover up the satellite era since 1979, thereby prevent the greenhouse effect from happening, and render the entire satellite era greenhouse free. And thirdly, this involves Michael Mann because he has apparent knowledge of the fake “post-1980” warming and his connection with the happenings there should be brought out. I already knew that HadCRUT3 was involved with it but later I found that GISS and NCDC were also involved. They all used the same computer to adjust their temperature curves and the computer left its footprints in all three publicly available temperature curves, all in the exact same locations. Mann needs to be questioned to find out what he knows about this. Perhaps this ought to be injected into the lawsuit he is involved in. I don’t know anything about it but if you do, point out to them what I have discovered.

    • Thanks Arno

      We are preparing for witnesses and strategy right now. There is also another discovery of Mann on October 29 because he sued the Frontier Centre in Winnipeg who reported my comments. I will attend with my lawyer.

  17. Some mentions of the second release of emails that remain in the dark. I think these guys have learned not to treat emails as confidential after c-gate and subsequent emails will lack the candor of the unguarded moments of the first. This makes for an interesting sub topic in a thesis on the history of the electronic revolution coming of age. These jolly good felons were victims of their own naivete about this wonderful technology.

    • And thus the counter to your discovery Dr Ball. You now have to prove that the email scandal is NOT fabricated and you have to refute past investigational (however shoddy) conclusions.

      The lie is takes 10x the effort to combat and they are 10× as far ahead in the court of public appeal annnnd the spreading of money making enterprise attached to the lie.

      At this point one of three things (there could be more as I left out nuclear war and meteor strikes) will happen to stop the momentum of the lie :

      1. The earth will unexpectedly cool to a degree that people notice and at that point they’ll probably claim victory for it so you’ll have to fend that off.

      2. The waste and abuse will become so silly that energy costs will translate to crazy food costs and so on and so on.

      3. The global economy completely crashes and we push the reset button because depression sets in and nobody has cash for frilly things like more expensive energy.

      In any case Soros gets to sell you coal.

      All the above are out of your control. What is in your control is to continue to calmly point out critical thinking skills (which you do) while brainstorming an effective public marketing campaign for WHY real science matters (which I haven’t seen from the scientific community).

      • At this point one of three things (there could be more as I left out nuclear war and meteor strikes) will happen to stop the momentum of the lie :

        1. The earth will unexpectedly cool to a degree that people notice and at that point they’ll probably claim victory for it so you’ll have to fend that off.

        2. The waste and abuse will become so silly that energy costs will translate to crazy food costs and so on and so on.

        3. The global economy completely crashes and we push the reset button because depression sets in and nobody has cash for frilly things like more expensive energy.

        #1 will expectedly cool in a La Niña starting in 2016. If it is severe, it will help to stem the tide.
        #2 is starting to happen in the pioneer countries in Europe.
        #3 is starting to happen with the drop in all the world’s stock markets this year.

        What would really help is a multi-episode Documentary that could be shown on Fox and/or theaters. It should avoid overstatement and acknowledge valid or semi-valid points of the opposition.

      • That’s a good next step. While you are being baited into debating the minutia, your opponents are successfully marketing the ruse. They mock you not because you are intellectually incorrect but because you have not realized that you are fighting the battle they want you to fight.

        You have proclaimed yourselves the world’s number 1 webpage concerning AGW or something akin to that claim.

        I read because I enjoy the rigorous attempts at critical thinking. It’s a breath of fresh air. I ignore the pithy, petty comments. I’d recommend that you cull those as they don’t help the brand you have established.

        I also recommend that you raise money for the documentary that you describe. Be above reproach with your funding. Surely, there are excellent writers and production crew among your readers who would gladly offer assistance.

        The hard part is already done. Facts are in your favor and you have the following this webpage has created. The next part takes vision, purpose, creativity in resonating with your audience and followthru.

        Some ideas …

        Focus on the coming cooling trend if your data supports it.
        Highlight the economies that are already suffering because of the ruse.
        Point out hypocrisy, Soros and coal eg.

        While they are scaring people and playing to false guilt perhaps you counter that by showing an emperor with no clothes.

        My comments are blunt because I respect your integrity and want you to succeed, but I don’t want to wait 20 years for the tide to turn.

      • KNUTE
        “1. The earth will unexpectedly cool to a degree that people notice and at that point they’ll probably claim victory for it so you’ll have to fend that off.”

        This possibility is very real between now and 2045 The cooling has already started especially in NORTH AMERICA. That is how the 1940-1980 temperature trough started , in North America first.

      • Good.

        Are you content waiting 10 years for people to feel the chill that causes them to question the ruse ?

        Take what you know and build on it.
        Make that documentary.
        Provide a replacement for the current ruse related RORs.
        Show how that replacement makes people’s lives better.

        You are in a more powerful position than you realize, but you are not seeing it because you have taken the bait the opposition gIves you.

        You are scientists, engineers, experts in your fields. You are trained to analyze things further and further down the rabbit hole and so they bait you to do so while they take the contest to a different battlefield.

      • North America land temperature anomalies have also been trending down mostly since 1977 except summers

        WINTER -0.54 C/ decade
        SPRING -0.08 C/ decade
        SUMMER +0.23 C / decade
        FALL -0.03 C/ decade

        ANNUAL -0.10 C/ decade

        US temperature anomalies have also been trending down mostly since 1998 or 18 years except spring and summers

        ANNUAL -0.48 C/decade

        WINTER -1.44 C/decade
        SPRING +0.11C/decade
        SUMMER +0.23 C/decade
        FALL -0.50 C/ decade

      • 10x the effort to combat the lie, while they move 10x faster in a different arena.

        You fight about meaningless (yes meaningful IF this was a collegiate debate) temp changes while they cut deals to stop coal fired power plants being funded with western money.

        You will not beat them as long as you are reacting and not anticipating their moves.

      • Yes, I’m a fan of that chart.
        So why hasn’t that chart ended the lie ?

        It’s not about the temperature. That’s why.

        It’s about ROR.
        It’s about the promise of clean energy.
        It’s about bragging rights at parties.

        Offer an alternative that puts money in the pockets of the wealthy while allowing them to self righteously brag at parties about how they are do gooders and you’ll weaken the stranglehold of the lie.

        First you have to give them an alternative.

      • Knute:

        . . . It’s about ROR.
        It’s about the promise of clean energy.
        It’s about bragging rights at parties.

        Offer an alternative that puts money in the pockets of the wealthy while allowing them to self righteously brag at parties about how they are do gooders and you’ll weaken the stranglehold of the lie.

        First you have to give them an alternative.

        I wish I knew how to go about “giving them an alternative.” I don’t know how to offer avenues to riches that will entice the “1%.” Concrete suggestions?

        I can perhaps offer an alternative idea, one that actually motivated the industrialization of the Western world, back in the 19th century, namely: Progress.

        Back in 2009, a few of us on this board came up with the idea to start an organization along the lines of the ‘environmental’ nonprofits like the Sierra Club, WWF, etc., which have achieved such prominence and financial success that even their nominal enemies (on our side) routinely give to them (e.g. Exxon—a fact which if anything makes Knute’s point).

        The name of this organization was to be ‘Terra Home’. Rather than repeat the discussion, here is a link to a summary I posted last year, here:

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/25/results-of-my-poll-on-forming-a-skeptic-organization-plus-some-commentary/#comment-1621368

        The Charter of Terra Home, as I envisioned it, might read something like this:

        What the Alarmists want to do, with or without good intentions, is to stop Civilization and Progress in their tracks. But economic growth, which means cheap and abundant energy, is essential for Progress, and contrary to the Alarmists, the CO2 that might produce is good, good for plants, good for the Earth, and good for you. They offer a dead and dying Earth, with everyone cowering in fear; we promise a bright future of development for all people on the planet, a planet of beautiful cities and fields and gardens, fueled by abundant energy. . .

        The time wasn’t right. Could it be now? I’d be willing to help.

        /Mr Lynn

      • Knute,

        I feel you may be overly skeptical of the value of “reminding” folks of the CG e-mail fiasco in that many did see it as an indictment of the modelers in question. Doing such reminding, and a bit of updating, along with driving home the point that the models have proven unreliable, can I think be rather “cost effective” in terms of counteracting the public opinion maneuvers we are surely going to see. An investment has been made, and it would be wise to be in for at least another dime, I say, if not the whole dollar.

        What you have been championing here seems wise as well, to me, and I suggest taking a page from the military boys, and thinking in terms of “full spectrum dominance” . . though full spectrum significance would be a realistic goal at this point.

        I realize the court of public opinion is not the be all and end all that some may have seen it as up till now, but rich folks at parties don’t like to be laughed at/seen as gullible either, and surely there’s an element of doubt such a PR fiasco carries with it, that could be useful in getting some to be more open to the sorts of alternatives you are proposing be offered.

        I say, good, Revisit The Climategate Revelations To Counter Mainstream Media Failure And The Paris Climate Conference Plans. But don’t rest on their laurel and hardys ; )

      • Yes, I concur. You can do both. My passion for wanting to make my point interfered with my ability to see that both strategies are appropriate.

        Well done.

      • verdeviewer
        Your temperature graph is interesting but the contiguous US is not the world. Also, your plot is not consistent with others. This is from the EPA website

  18. This post favorably refers to a “detailed analysis Canadian network engineer Lance Levsen” did which supposedly proves:

    For the hacker to have collected all of this information s/he would have required extraordinary capabilities…to crack an Administrative file server to get to the emails and crack numerous workstations, desktops, and servers to get the documents.

    I’ve got to say, this is completely wrong. Levsen acknowledges the individual who released the e-mails could have gotten all the e-mails from a single server, but he claims to have gotten the documents, the person would have had to break into individual computers. That’s nonsensical. Levsen completely fails to consider the possibility the documents in question were attachments to e-mails, attachments which would have been stored by the mail server.

    People are free to believe the person who released the Climategate e-mails was an insider if they want, but basing that belief off such a bad argument is a terrible idea. People should be skeptical of what they’re told about IT topics, just like they should be skeptical about everything else.

    • It is in any case not unknown for careless admins to allow users to set-up unpassworded shares on their computers. In such a situation, anyone with a logon to ANY computer, servers included, could easily find and download unprotected share contents on other computers. I don’t know if that was the case but is is not all that unusual to find this sort of security hole in offices.

      • The emails were gained by an outsider who had temporary position at the CRU, and happened to be in the right place at the right time. It was quickly realised that the person was already outside police jurisdiction, and no further action was taken to avoid an unnecessary international spat.

    • It was established early on that all files (email and documents) originated from one lone server running PC Backup. Due to the housekeeping nature of some of the documents they were most likely a mix of internal stuff and email attachments.

    • Brandon Shollenberger on September 28, 2015 at 11:58 pm

      – – – – – – –

      Brandon Shollenberger,

      I agree that a reasonable thinker would, at this time, remain skeptical about the identity and affiliation of the person(s) responsible for the unauthorized publication of CRU email (Climategate). Let’s call the person(s) ‘email releaser(s)’.

      Possibility #1 – ‘email releaser(s)’ as insider(s) formally or informally connected to CRU

      Possibility #2 – ‘email releaser(s)’ as outsider(s) not connected to CRU

      Possibility #3 – ‘email releaser(s)’ as being a partnership between CRU insiders and outsiders not connected to CRU.

      The claim, in the below message** that accompanied CG3 release, that there is just one person involved in CG1, CG2 and CG3 is unsubstantiated of course. So it cannot be taken as evidence of anything regarding the number of persons involved in releasing the CRU emails.

      I tend use the idea that ‘email releaser(s)’ was/is a team (two or more persons) simply because it gives no constraint on areas of investigation. And if it was/is a team then they would have had to communicate which makes for an investigative lever to pry open the mystery.

      John
      – – – – –

      [**Message that accompanied CG3 email release]

      Subject: FOIA 2013: the password
      It’s time to tie up loose ends and dispel some of the speculation surrounding the Climategate affair.
      Indeed, it’s singular “I” this time. After certain career developments I can no longer use the papal plural
      If this email seems slightly disjointed it’s probably my linguistic background and the problem of trying to address both the wider audience (I expect this will be partially reproduced sooner or later) and the email recipients (whom I haven’t decided yet on).
      The “all.7z” password is [redacted]
      DO NOT PUBLISH THE PASSWORD. Quote other parts if you like. Releasing the encrypted archive was a mere practicality. I didn’t want to keep the emails lying around. I prepared CG1 & 2 alone. Even skimming through all 220.000 emails would have taken several more months of work in an increasingly unfavorable environment.
      Dumping them all into the public domain would be the last resort. Majority of the emails are irrelevant, some of them probably sensitive and socially damaging.
      To get the remaining scientifically (or otherwise) relevant emails out, I ask you to pass this on to any motivated and responsible individuals who could volunteer some time to sift through the material for eventual release. Filtering\redacting personally sensitive emails doesn’t require special expertise. I’m not entirely comfortable sending the password around unsolicited, but haven’t got better ideas at the moment. If you feel this makes you seemingly “complicit” in a way you don’t like, don’t take action.
      I don’t expect these remaining emails to hold big surprises. Yet it’s possible that the most important pieces are among them. Nobody on the planet has held the archive in plaintext since CG2. That’s right; no conspiracy, no paid hackers, no Big Oil. The Republicans didn’t plot this. USA politics is alien to me, neither am I from the UK. There is life outside the Anglo-American sphere.
      If someone is still wondering why anyone would take these risks, or sees only a breach of privacy here, a few words…
      The first glimpses I got behind the scenes did little to garner my trust in the state of climate science — on the contrary. I found myself in front of a choice that just might have a global impact.
      Briefly put, when I had to balance the interests of my own safety, privacy\career of a few scientists, and the well-being of billions of people living in the coming several decades, the first two weren’t the decisive concern.
      It was me or nobody, now or never. Combination of several rather improbable prerequisites just wouldn’t occur again for anyone else in the foreseeable future. The circus was about to arrive in Copenhagen. Later on it could be too late.
      Most would agree that climate science has already directed where humanity puts its capability, innovation, mental and material “might”. The scale will grow ever grander in the coming decades if things go according to script. We’re dealing with $trillions and potentially drastic influence on practically everyone.
      Wealth of the surrounding society tends to draw the major brushstrokes of a newborn’s future life. It makes a huge difference whether humanity uses its assets to achieve progress, or whether it strives to stop and reverse it, essentially sacrificing the less fortunate to the climate gods.
      We can’t pour trillions in this massive hole-digging-and-filling-up endeavor and pretend it’s not away from something and someone else.
      If the economy of a region, a country, a city, etc. deteriorates, what happens among the poorest? Does that usually improve their prospects? No, they will take the hardest hit. No amount of magical climate thinking can turn this one upside-down.
      It’s easy for many of us in the western world to accept a tiny green inconvenience and then wallow in that righteous feeling, surrounded by our “clean” technology and energy that is only slightly more expensive if adequately subsidized.
      Those millions and billions already struggling with malnutrition, sickness, violence, illiteracy, etc. don’t have that luxury. The price of “climate protection” with its cumulative and collateral effects is bound to destroy and debilitate in great numbers, for decades and generations.
      Conversely, a “game-changer” could have a beneficial effect encompassing a similar scope.
      If I had a chance to accomplish even a fraction of that, I’d have to try. I couldn’t morally afford inaction. Even if I risked everything, would never get personal compensation, and could probably never talk about it with anyone.
      I took what I deemed the most defensible course of action, and would do it again (although with slight alterations — trying to publish something truthful on RealClimate was clearly too grandiose of a plan .
      Even if I have it all wrong and these scientists had some good reason to mislead us (instead of making a strong case with real data) I think disseminating the truth is still the safest bet by far.
      Big thanks to Steve and Anthony and many others. My contribution would never have happened without your work (whether or not you agree with the views stated).
      Oh, one more thing. I was surprised to learn from a “progressive” blog, corroborated by a renowned “scientist”, that the releases were part of a coordinated campaign receiving vast amounts of secret funding from shady energy industry groups.
      I wasn’t aware of the arrangement but warmly welcome their decision to support my project. For that end I opened a bitcoin address: 1HHQ36qbsgGZWLPmiUjYHxQUPJ6EQXVJFS.
      More seriously speaking, I accept, with gratitude, modest donations to support The (other) Cause. The address can also serve as a digital signature to ward off those identity thefts which are part of climate scientists’ repertoire of tricks these days.
      Keep on the good work. I won’t be able to use this email address for long so if you reply, I can’t guarantee reading or answering. I will several batches, to anyone I can think of.
      Over and out.
      Mr. FOIA

      • Has a linguist ever look at Mr.FOIA’s message? Sometimes where a person comes from can be detected by their writings.

      • Barbara on September 29, 2015 at 6:26 pm

        Has a linguist ever look at Mr.FOIA’s message? Sometimes where a person comes from can be detected by their writings.

        Barbara,

        If you go look at various blog posts at the time of release of that CG3 message, then you will see some discussion of analysis of the ‘linguistics’ to help profile the author(s) of the message.

        I do not recall anything about the authorities doing any formal linguistic analysis.

        John

      • dbstealey on September 29, 2015 at 6:51 pm

        He would have to be a very cunning one to figure that out.

        dbstealey,

        Yes, but it would only take one cunning person. Also, I remember there was resistance to those skeptics, at the time of the CG3 release, who were analyzing the situation with a goal to identify the ’email releaser(s)’.

        John

      • Thanks! Back in grad school I had a house-mate who was a linguist.

        Use of the “papal we” is interesting and it appears to me that this person learned North American English as he says he is not UK or U.S. Learned in a U.S. school/teacher or from a North American parent?

        Speculation is interesting.

  19. Police say the theft was “sophisticated and orchestrated”, and that no-one at the university is implicated.

    This ignores the actual case that it was a series of stupid errors that together resulted in the files going to the wrong people. That they seem to make a habit of this was deliberately or otherwise overlooked by the police as well as the fact they got lucky on the other occasions and sent to files to people who for contractual reasons at work could not take copies or pass it on.

  20. Tim Ball:

    Thankyou for another excellent article. Your reminder of the importance of the ‘climategate’ revelations is timely and important prior to the Paris CoP.

    I ask you and all others to ignore the many attempts to deflect attention in this thread from your article by provision of ignorant (?), silly, and untrue misrepresentations of socialism and religion (especially Roman Catholicism).

    The contents of your article are important and worthy of consideration: the irrelevant and untrue assertions about socialism and religion in this thread are not.

    Richard

  21. I certainly feel that there is a need to pressure Wikipedia to correct their flagrant bias on Climategate. The way it’s presented is as if there was absolutely no misconduct at CRU. Now, we know that is a lie.

    Even the Guardian carries articles which are of a more balanced nature, some even highly critical of the methods used by CRU. Despite their journalists being rampant CAGW supporters, even they admit there were questionable actions involved.

    • You’ll never win at Wikipedia, the mods are social justice warriors. The best you can hope for is to get a mod fired if they constantly remove factual information but that doesn’t mean the information will get posted. You’d be better off starting a SciPedia.

  22. Time is of the essence for some truth and reconciliation, with India playing the field using terms like reparation payments from rich countries and increasing coal consumption at the same time. Meanwhile Brazil is erasing the rain forest and also clamoring for reparation funds. Chaos is about to get a lot more expensive and with real enviro damages set to accelerate.

  23. Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    Welcome to Climategate …

    “Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with early release of information (via Oz), “inventing” the December monthly value, letters to Nature etc etc? I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year, simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.” “We feed this selectively to Nick Nuttall (Executive Director of UNEP) (who has had this in the past and seems now to expect special treatment) so that he can write an article for the silly season. We could also give this to Neville Nicholls (IPCC lead author and Australian Met Bureau employee.)??”

  24. Dr. Tim Ball wrote:

    “[. . .] They [the climategate emails] effectively stopped political plans for a replacement of the Kyoto Protocol, a massive redistribution of wealth designed as part of Agenda 21. You can read what the UN says about this plan developed under the auspices of Maurice Strong as head of the United Nations Environment Progam (UNEP) or read Glenn Becks interpretation of the implications.”

    Dr. Tim Ball,

    If you are monitoring the comments here on your WUWT post, perhaps you would care to respond in a comment here to the topic of whether one can reasonably consider that socialism, in a generic/fundamental sense of the meaning of socialism, is the prime cause of any coordinated efforts to show CAGW via the UNEP/AGENDA21WMO/IPCC/UN/UNFCCC?

    Is it socialism that is the prime/fundamental driver?

    John

      • “Socialism” buzzword bait vs “Capitalism”.
        It’s an emotional setup to create forced choices (fallacy) that are then meant to curry favor with the desired audience. Once the choice is made its easier to deceive.

        People are simple. They want the opportunity to live the best life they are capable of living. The AGW ruse hasn’t affected them yet. Their kids are being taught it’s real and its bad and it’s their parents fault. Brilliant old strategy.

        IF people realize how badly they are being impacted by this ruse, they will get very angry.

      • richardscourtney on September 29, 2015 at 9:24 pm

        John Whitman:

        NO, it is NOT “socialism that is the prime/fundamental driver” but you knew that.

        Hopefully your ‘red herring’ will remain as a stinking fish untouched by any.

        Richard

        richardscourtney,

        Perhaps Dr Tim Ball will respond to my sincere question to him. If not here then perhaps he will respond in a future post on that topic. I respectfully think Dr Tim Ball’s perspective would add considerable depth to a discussion of the matter. And, based on his many many WUWT posts over the years, I would not expect Dr Tim Ball to side step issues related to the subject.

        My view is socialism’s relationship to the CAGW crusade is that it is oblique and indirect; secondary. My view of the situation that created the CAGW crusade is that it isn’t fundamentally caused by any political area of any broader philosophy; nor do I think the CAGW crusade is caused by any ethical or economic area of any broader philosophy. I think the CAGW crusade is caused by corruption of the epistemological area of a broader philosophy; caused by error in a philosophy of science’s epistemology. I think the CAGW crusade is caused by an epistemological error that is the replacement objectivity in the philosophy of science with subjectivity in the philosophy of science. With subjectivity in the philosophy of science comes the situation were popular political goals inform ‘scientists’ what ‘science’ they should find.

        Given that position, then I see the popular political goals used to subjectivise CAGW climate science are one’s that promote globally focused central governments to collectivize massive wealth across all societies to redistribute it for socially mandated and coerced benefits. It is fundamental socialism of the same variety that Naomi Klein peddles in her new book ‘This Changes Everything – Capitalism vs the Climate’. I recommend that book as a means to understand the context of socialism and the CAGW crusade.

        That said, I think the root cause of the error in a philosophy of science’s epistemology (that caused the CAGW crusade) is the nature of any dual reality metaphysical theory that exists in any broader philosophy. Think Kant which is a discussion for the future as appropriate.

        John

      • Wow, that was a tough read and boarders on the fallacy of making something unnecessarily complex. I’d recommend making it simpler.

        Modern science began to lose its way when the peer review process began to reward successfully demonstrations of the theory over failed ones.

        Oh, socialism, capitalism, communism, are all isms meant to appeal to blood lust level emotions. You are free to ism it up, but be prepared to be called out on it.

      • John Whitman,

        I think you’re right on target, so to speak. The UN is obviously not a coming together of the common folk of the world, but the most powerful “elites” in each country. Control is the name of the real game, I believe, and socialism in it’s broadest sense is a perfect vehicle for disguising their true intentions.

    • John Whitman:

      NO, it is NOT “socialism that is the prime/fundamental driver” but you knew that.

      Hopefully your ‘red herring’ will remain as a stinking fish untouched by any.

      Richard

      • Of course it’s not socialism, it’s what socialism is used as bait to sell. And a slave plantation is not communism, even if the slaves all get treated roughly the same. Pushing socialism at this point is just asking for it, as I see our predicament.

        First we get back our unalienable human rights, and our Constitution, I propose. Then we can move toward what a sufficient majority feel is best, and call it whatever we like. Cool way of doing government, huh?

      • richardscourtney on September 29, 2015 at 9:24 pm

        – – – – – –

        richardscourtney,

        My reply to you is above at John Whitman on September 30, 2015 at 10:43 am

        John

      • John Whitman:

        I read the twaddle that you posted here in this thread in attempt to wave your red herring.

        You are very mistaken if you think I am willing to help you disrupt the thread onto debate of your irrelevant and untrue twaddle.

        Johnknight pointed out the basic error in your ridiculous assertion. And I add that the AGW-scare was deliberately started by the right (i.e. by Margaret Thatcher) and is both supported and is opposed by people of both left and right.

        For example, today the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, claimed “In other words, once climate change becomes a defining issue for financial stability, it may already be too late.”

        The banks are not promoting the AGW-scare to promote socialism.

        I sincerely hope this eradicates your ridiculous red herring. I have refuted it and I will ignore you waving it again.

        Richard

      • Ricahrd,

        The problem as I see it, is that socialism unto itself is not a form of government, but an aspect of certain justifications for various potential policies. It’s kinda like saying “I favor equitable”, or “efficient government”, to me, when one advocates for socialism. Who determines what is equitable or efficient (or in “society as a wholes” best interest) is about form of government.

        I believe the term is currently being used in such a way that “the banks” might very well be promoting socialism, since it has virtually nothing to do with depriving them of profits/power. It’s about forcing everyone to participate/conform to what a few in power (and their favorite “experts”) claim is in the best interest of society as a whole.

        If you mean something more than that, I suggest you spell that out (briefly) rather than expect people uneasy about things like centralized/top down control of society. That’s what seems to me to be the “stink” some are smelling when that fish is named. I personally want no part in a “one size fits all” sort of “controlled” society. There are no “controllers” on this planet that I trust with such power.

      • Johnknight:

        Say what!?

        Your demand that I discuss an off-topic subject in this thread is impertinent especially when I gave you a link to a discussion of that subject in which I fully participated on WUWT. If you honestly wanted to know my views and my understanding of my political ideology then you would have read the link especially when you have demonstrated your ignorance of the subject (I am assuming your assertions concerning socialism are ignorance and not deliberate disinformation).

        And there is no compunction for me to discuss anything with anybody. That is not me being “evasive”: it is reality.

        Richard

      • richardscourtney

        “Your demand that I discuss an off-topic subject . . ”

        I made no demands, I told you the truth.

        I read the discussion you linked to, and I saw nothing about the aspects I mentioned here, so, fool that I am, I tried to discuss them with you in the context of this discussion. Specifically the aspects you used me as some sort of authority about;

        “Johnknight pointed out the basic error in your ridiculous assertion.”

        Again, if you won’t discuss your “ism” in context, I see you as evasive, sir.

      • Johnknight:

        Lies do not become “truth” when you provide them.

        My link fully refutes your assertions. That is not me being”evasive”: it is truth.

        I am not affected by what you say you mistakenly claim you think of me and, therefore, it does not tempt to me to deflect the thread to an off-topic discussion.

        Richard

      • “My link fully refutes your assertions. That is not me being”evasive”: it is truth.”

        It refutes your claimed aversion to going off topic with this subject, to me.

      • Wading into the issue.

        Why is it relevant to understand the influence of an economic model on the CAGW movement ?

        It’s not relevant from the pov of validating scientific evidence.

        It is relevant if your trying to understand the economics behind the movement because socialism is one of the many economic theories.

        It’s probably also relevant if you are trying to figure out which economic group is likely to favor CAGW.

        Most people are neither capitalists or socialists. They are communists or anarchists. Their beliefs and practices don’t fall into a nice little ism box. Marketers like to use those terms to appeal to an emotional identification that arises from one of those terms.

        Let’s say your a CAGW marketer …

        “My fellow capitalists, it’s my pleasure to introduce CAGWs latest attempt to shift the old ROR of classic utility companies and allow the true venture capital in you the opportunity to get in early.”

        “My fellow socialist, CAGW presents an opportunity for all of us to enjoy Mt Coalalot as it stands forever untouched. It’s beauty available for all while keeping it’s dangerous CO2 where it belongs.”

        And on and on with some other ism.

        I don’t see evasion. I see a disagreement on framing relevancy.

      • Johnknight:

        I repeat my link to help others to check for themselves which of us is telling the truth.

        It seems that Knute has checked the matter for himself and he accurately concludes.

        I don’t see evasion. I see a disagreement on framing relevancy.

        Richard

      • Knute,

        You wrote;

        “It’s an emotional setup to create forced choices …”

        I think so to . . It’s a setup.

        By whom do you think?

      • John Knight clipped, pasted and asked

        “Knute,

        You wrote;

        “It’s an emotional setup to create forced choices …”

        I think so to . . It’s a setup.

        By whom do you think?”

        Knute answers

        I’m getting a tad confused John. I’m going to assume you mean the baiting (setup) that occurred concerning “is socialism behind CAGW”.

        Is this what you meant ?

        Full Sentence :

        Who is responsible for the setup concerning the CAGW movement ?

      • Richard,

        “It seems that Knute has checked the matter for himself and he accurately concludes.

        “I don’t see evasion. I see a disagreement on framing relevancy.”

        i have no idea what makes him think you’ve said word one about such things.

      • Knute,

        “I’m getting a tad confused John. I’m going to assume you mean the baiting (setup) that occurred concerning “is socialism behind CAGW”.

        Is this what you meant ?”

        No, I meant the setup you referred to, earlier, above;

        ” ““Socialism” buzzword bait vs “Capitalism”.
        It’s an emotional setup to create forced choices …”

        I agree it’s a setup . . By whom do you think?

        “Full Sentence :

        Who is responsible for the setup concerning the CAGW movement ?”

        Apparently you mean who do I believe is responsible.

        I think it’s the same basic group of people in both cases, and that we have been getting setup, as you put it, for a very long time. Intentionally, knowingly, expertly . . scientifically if you will. We, as a society, are under attack, and have been for a long time I believe, by what can be summarized as a band of hyper-wealthy psychopaths that want to rule the world, naturally.

      • Who is responsible for the setup concerning the CAGW movement ?”

        John Knight writes

        “Apparently you mean who do I believe is responsible.

        I think it’s the same basic group of people in both cases, and that we have been getting setup, as you put it, for a very long time. Intentionally, knowingly, expertly . . scientifically if you will. We, as a society, are under attack, and have been for a long time I believe, by what can be summarized as a band of hyper-wealthy psychopaths that want to rule the world, naturally.”

        Correlation equals causation ?

        So if you look at a chart on wealth distribution it’s actually kind of fascinating. I don’t have it here but Google wealthometer.com. Parabolic increases when you get to the 1% of the 1%.

        You shouldn’t be shocked. You’ve been told this exists for a long time.
        So what does the 1% of the 1% do with that money ?
        What would you do ?

        Would you decide that you feel false guilt for the billions who live in abject poverty and decide that you want to make some shit up so that you could make them better off ?

        Perhaps.

        I know (fact) that very few have incredible wealth.
        What are they capable of ?

        Definitely worthy of a peer review study :).

      • Knute,

        “What would you do ?”

        Wrong question I say. What would people who initiate/perpetrate things like this CAWG shake-down, or instigate wars, human trafficking, bankster bailouts etc. do, is the relevant question, I suggest.

        “Would you decide that you feel false guilt for the billions who live in abject poverty and decide that you want to make some shit up so that you could make them better off ?”

        O course not, and neither would the people I just differentiated. I’m not speaking of a random sample of the rich, but of a real live gang of cutthroats, who are in that top tich of a percent because they are “elite” cutthroats. Causation necessitates correlation, you might say.

      • John Knight hypothesized

        “O course not, and neither would the people I just differentiated. I’m not speaking of a random sample of the rich, but of a real live gang of cutthroats, who are in that top tich of a percent because they are “elite” cutthroats. Causation necessitates correlation, you might say.”

        Here are some facts. It is a link to an organization that tracks the flow of political donations. These facts provide clues for how you could sculpt a more evidenced correlation.

        A smarter “elite” fronts those donations through old fashioned untraceable contacts, but the below link is a good point of departure.

        https://www.opensecrets.org/news/newsanalysis.php

        So John, what happens to the concept of social contract if what you postulate is true and it becomes common knowledge that corruption is endemic ?

      • Knute,

        “So John, what happens to the concept of social contract if what you postulate is true and it becomes common knowledge that corruption is endemic ?”

        I think epidemic or perhaps pandemic is more accurate, and since the concept of the social contract is what is being obscured/exploited by this neo-socialist mumbo jumbo, perhaps it will be rescued/revitalized in some sense. It’s not like no one notices the hypocrisy of Mr. Gore for instance, laying down “carbon footprints” bigger than whole towns in third world countries, while crying crocodile tears over their looming incineration in a global meltdown, after all.

        I suspect you mean what happens to the effectual contract itself if corruption endemic to the “psychopathic elite” becomes common knowledge . . and I really don’t know.

        What I believe is that the destruction and demonization of our Constitutional Republic is considered vital by this gang of cutthroats, for they intend to return to the ancient “rule by a few elites” model, that dominated essentially all civilizations before the “rule of law./by consent of the governed” model sputtered to life in recent times.

        In short, we got little to lose and nothing to hope for as I see our predicament, if we don’t somehow get this (to my mind) critical understanding into the minds of a whole lot more high intelligence people . . hence, I’m here trying.

      • John Knight wrote

        “What I believe is that the destruction and demonization of our Constitutional Republic is considered vital by this gang of cutthroats, for they intend to return to the ancient “rule by a few elites” model, that dominated essentially all civilizations before the “rule of law./by consent of the governed” model sputtered to life in recent times.

        In short, we got little to lose and nothing to hope for as I see our predicament, if we don’t somehow get this (to my mind) critical understanding into the minds of a whole lot more high intelligence people . . hence, I’m here trying.”

        Awakening minds to the almost unimaginable power of the 1% of the 1% is a noble endeavor. You have to have a check on that type of power.

        At the same time there is a growing dogma called social justice. It is the belief that each and every human being is not living a mindful life if they are not considering their own consumption choices while others go with less or are harmed by your choices. (If you like movies see “The East”. Co-written by a wall street dropout).

        I agree that the uber wealthy are pulling many of the strings in an effort to amass more wealth and competing with each other. I think most people are open to hearing that fact.

        Less people are open to even discussing the effects of their own personal choices on the so called suffering of others. The non uber rich who are warmistas hang onto an increasingly scientifically unsupported theory because they see it as an opportunity to execute the dogma they preach. I think that’s a harder discussion to elevate awareness about.

        Let’s take Bob who lives in my town.

        Doubts CAGW.
        Thinks scientists are bought off.
        Engineers too if you don’t watch them.
        Accepts that the rich live better than him.
        Wouldn’t mind giving the rich life a try.
        Has shrapnel damage in his leg from Iraq.
        Is pissed that he volunterred for that lie.
        Thinks todays environmentalists are wacky.
        Refinery firefighter.
        Wouldn’t mind free solar if he was given it.
        Hunts, fishes and practices conservation.
        Thinks the pope is on the take.

        I could go on but I sense that Bob has alot in common with the general populace.

      • Knute,

        Let me try this;

        “At the same time there is a growing dogma called social justice.”

        Yep, and where oh where did this “dogma” come from? This heavy duty guilt trip manipulation across a wide range of arenas (including the CAWG) aimed directly at “the Wrest”. The racist, sexist, homophobic, greedy, war loving, climate denying, fat shaming, xenophobic, simple minded, extremist, environment loathing West. (add fundamentalist ridden and gun crazed for US)

        What a complete failure this venture into self governance has been.

    • richardscourtney on September 30, 2015 at 1:09 pm

      John Whitman:

      I read the twaddle that you posted here in this thread in attempt to wave your red herring.

      You are very mistaken if you think I am willing to help you disrupt the thread onto debate of your irrelevant and untrue twaddle.

      Johnknight pointed out the basic error in your ridiculous assertion. And I add that the AGW-scare was deliberately started by the right (i.e. by Margaret Thatcher) and is both supported and is opposed by people of both left and right.

      For example, today the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, claimed “In other words, once climate change becomes a defining issue for financial stability, it may already be too late.”

      The banks are not promoting the AGW-scare to promote socialism.

      I sincerely hope this eradicates your ridiculous red herring. I have refuted it and I will ignore you waving it again.

      Richard

      – – – – – – –

      Richardscourtney,

      Central banks of countries like the UK and the USA are government created and essentially therefore political influenced instruments. The Bank of England is the central bank of the UK. If any government and its administration of the current term predominately supports a political philosophy then the central bank is just performing its duties within the current government administrations political goals. Your Bank of England reference is a non-sequitur.

      My idea, as stated in my previous comment, is socialism has been allowed as a subjective instrument in supporting the CAGW crusade because the erroneous subjective epistemology in a school of the philosophy of science has allowed subjective influences like socialism into climate science. Strongly in support of my idea see the work of vehemently socialist advocate Naomi Klein, in her new book, clearly making a repeated (may I say ad naseum) case that socialism has found an essential tactical and strategic tool for empowering itself by endorsing coordinated efforts to show CAGW via the UNEP/AGENDA21/WMO/IPCC/UN/UNFCCC. She makes a convincing case that socialism is and should be the leader in promoting that opportunity.

      But again, the fault allowing the creation of the CAGW crusade is an epistemological one outside of any political philosophy like socialism.

      John

      • Mr Whitman

        Courts of law rely upon the Daubert Factors when weighing the scientific expertise. The Daubert Factors rely a great deal on the peer review process to validate expertise.

        CAGW is obviously not supported by the facts, yet continues to be treated by prestigous peer review journals as highly regarded … translating to carrying significant weight in court.

        Pre 1960s you could fund many a journal article about failed experiments. Much harder today. IMHO that is when the shift occurred.
        From that point on, the peer review process slowly eroded in terms of its objective status.

        I think the “for profit peer review status” is firmly cemented. I’ll toss a bone in for mankind that it wasn’t intentional but instead a slow erosion of publically financed research. The unintentional consequence was science for sale.

        Socialists, capitalists, communists, environmentalists, nationalists, eugenicists, and any number of “ists” have figured out that if they spend enough money in the right places they can get a few key articles published. Those articles them become cited again and again and voila, you have a return on investment for your cause.

        We need an independent peer review system again. This one is broken.

        Oh, and it’s not just the fault or intent of socialists … they are just one cause du joir.

      • John Whitman:

        Your “idea” (actually, an unfounded assertion) is refuted by the facts in my response which you have quoted.

        Repeating your “idea” does not overcome the facts which show it is ridiculous.

        Richard

  25. What would be nice is that someone that has the password for all.7z write that password on subway walls and tenement halls. Or craphouse walls at the NYTimes. It has been said by those in the know that there is nothing new in there, but real value in that password is the publicity it would generate as Obama prepares to “go around congress” to advance his warped climate agenda.

    • POTUS’ pope moments and congressional badgering concerning climate change are smokescreen theatrics. The primary objective of those theatrics is a public appeal to emotion. Watch as the warmistas feed chunks of meat (the ridiculous positions and personas of the deniers) to their victimized masses. And yes, I know your positions are not ridiculous.

      Don’t be distracted by the theatre. Dont be baited by the half truths and exaggeration. The real things to stay informed about are the flow of money and commitments of capital.

      What’s the next move ?
      How can you part of something that counters it ?

      Take for instance, the Tesla Home Battery. I think AGW is a ruse and an embarrassment to the scientific process. I also think I’d like to be free to make my own power and manage it. Friends and neighbors like that idea. I’ve never really met anyone who would turn down the chance to express their freedom. Is the Tesla battery for real ? I can make my own fuel from biodiesel. I also have access to fossil fuel and if creative, I can toy with wind, solar and even the tide.

      What if you took the best ideas of the warmistas and presented pilot projects that demonstrated relatively clean and free energy for the home. And no, we don’t want to kill all the birds or blacken the sky w soot so we design windmills that don’t kill birds (Turby ?) and use soot removal tech. The pilot project would show what it costs to be free.

      And then you demonstrate that you can’t have it because some intellectually corrupt leaders decided that carbon dioxide is going to kill you.

      Show them, then take it away.

      People hate that.

  26. From Dr. Ball’s excellent article, the investigators explain what they know:

    Norfolk Constabulary says there is no realistic prospect of finding the culprit… Police say the theft was “sophisticated and orchestrated”, and that no-one at the university is implicated.

    Those police are a perfect fit for the Climategate scoundrels, because just like alarmist scientists, they can prove a negative:

    …no-one at the university is implicated.

    But they don’t know who did it:

    “The complex nature of this investigation means that we do not have a realistic prospect of identifying the offender or offenders…” &etc.

    So it could be just about anyone — except anyone at the University. Can’t be them.

    That tells me one thing for sure: it was someone at the University.

  27. Great article, dr Ball, thanks! At the time of COP15 & the release of ‘Climategate-1’ and shortly after there was the ‘Climategate-2′, adding to the scam, whereas there were some info/’rumours’ about even more revelations to be released/published, i.e. [type] ‘Climategate-3’ containing large amounts of info of all types. AFAIK I have not noticed any ‘Climategate-3’ yet. Anybody knowing anything about this? It would be superb to, timely, publish a ‘C-3’ package duly before the Paris COP20, wouldn’t it?

    Regards from Sweden/TJ

  28. Glad to see this topic being revisited. I’m disappointed that the rest of the emails were not released. They should have been released a long time ago.

Comments are closed.