Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
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:
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.
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.
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
Put a sock in it, Richard.
Ah! Yet another typical post from ‘ralfellis’ aka ‘silver ralph’ aka and etc.
As usual, it says nothing and is intended to annoy.
Richard
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.
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.
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.)??”
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
John:
Huh?
“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.
Chip Javert,
Uh-huh.
John
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:
I refuse to support the red herring about “socialism”.
I write to provide a link to an explanation of socialism that I have previously provided on WUWT because your misrepresentation of it is so wrong that it warrants correction.
Richard
If you won’t discuss it with me, in context, I see you as evasive, sir.
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.
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,
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
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.
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.
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
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.