Climategate--The Final Chapter
 

Just in time for the big meeting in Durban--a new slew of emails released.

Join the fun:

Climategate 2.0 emails – They’re real and they’re spectacular! | Watts Up With That?

WW

Re: Climategate--The Final Chapter
 

It's not about the Emails. It's never been about the Emails.

Capitalism vs. the Climate by Naomi Klein


Capitalism vs. the Climate | The Nation

Pushing nature beyond its limits. You got a model to prove that Ill bet.

It is not about the emails, it is about false science that denies all evidence that your theory is wrong.

I'm a very big fan of natural cycles-the strong kill and eat the weak.
I see it every day and agree, that is the way to go, it improves the breed.:D

But it seems that some want to hide the truth of "natural cycles" and substitute them for fiction. Oh mercy!


Scientists Behaving Badly - More nails for the coffin of man-made global warming
NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE ^ | November 28, 2011 | Jim Lacey

Posted on Monday, November 28, 2011 13:58:44 by neverdem

Scientists Behaving Badly
More nails for the coffin of man-made global warming



Global-warming skeptics spend much of their time knocking down the fatuous warmist claim that the science is settled. According to the warmists, this singular piece of settled science is attested to by hundreds or thousands of highly credentialed scientists. In truth, virtually the entire warmist edifice is built around a small, tightly knit coterie of persons (one hesitates to refer to folks with so little respect for the scientific method as scientists) willing to falsify data and manipulate findings; or, to put it bluntly, to lie in order to push a political agenda not supported by empirical evidence. This is what made the original release of the Climategate e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia so valuable. They clearly identified the politicized core of climate watchers who were driving the entire warmist agenda. Following in their footsteps are all the other scientists who built their own research on top of the fraudulent data produced by the warmist core.

Last week over 5,000 new e-mails, already dubbed Climategate 2, were released. Anyone still desiring to contest the assertion that only a few persons controlled the entire warmist agenda will be brought up short by this note from one warmist protesting that his opinions were not getting the hearing they deserved: “It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group.” Over the years this core group, led by Phil Jones at East Anglia and Michael Mann at Penn State, became so close that even those inclined toward more honest appraisals of the state of climate science were hesitant to rock the boat. As one warm-monger states: “I am not convinced that the ‘truth’ is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships.” Silly me, how many years have I wasted believing that the very point of science was to pursue the truth in the face of all obstacles. On the basis of this evidence the scientific method must be rewritten so as to state: “Science must be as objective as possible, unless it offends your friends.”

Unfortunately, from the very beginning, the core group at the heart of Climategate had no interest in “scientific truth.” As one states: “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what’s included and what is left out.” In other words, let’s decide on a conclusion and then use only evidence that proves that point, discarding everything else. One scientist who seems to have been slightly troubled by these methods wrote: “I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it, which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.” In another note to Phil Jones, this same scientist complained: “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest.”

Of course, nothing of the sort was done. As one e-mail states: “The figure you sent is very deceptive . . . there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change].” Too bad these so-called scientists felt they could tell the truth only to one another and not the public at large. Some of the other truths they shared only with one another are astounding. For instance, one writes: “I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro greenhouse zealot here!” So, despite having no confidence in any of the models the IPCC was using in its reports, this scientist was ready to support the IPCC findings to the hilt. And why didn’t he believe the models? Easy: They were designed to tell the big lie. For example, when confronted with the problem that if all the data were included, the warming disappeared, Phil Jones turned to a novel method: He used only “[time] periods that showed warming.”

At one point, Jones admits that the “basic problem is that all of the models are wrong.” Of course, there is a simple reason for this. When the models do not show what the warmists want them to show, they simply apply “some tuning.” One scientist was worried enough about this “tuning” to write that he “doubt[ed] the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer.” In this case, “tuning” means changing the model until it tells you what you want it to. When it became impossible to torture the models any further without making their uselessness apparent to all, the warmists resorted to changing the data.

The most efficient method of corrupting the models was to use data only from time periods when there was warming and discard others, as Jones admits to doing. This method helped one scientist reduce the cooling in the northern hemisphere between 1940 and 1970, so that he did not have to make up an excuse blaming it on sulphates, which could not be proven. Another complains that no matter how much he fiddles with the data, it is “very difficult to make the Medieval Warming Period go away.” Solving this problem in the modern era was much easier: The warmists merely changed the temperature readings for much of the 20th century and threw away the original data.

Why? One e-mail clearly explains what was at stake: ”I can’t overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made to look foolish.” In other words, all the scientific lying was a result of scientists trying to give their political masters a major issue they could use to control people’s lives and justify wasting trillions of dollars. Success, as one warmist stated, rested on somehow convincing the public that “limate change is extremely complicated, BUT to accept the dominant view that people are affecting it, and that impacts produces risk that needs careful and urgent attention.” In other words, climate science is too complex for the simpleton voters, who must be made to believe that unless we wreck the global economy the planet will bake. As Michael Mann says in one e-mail: “the important thing is to make sure they’re losing the PR battle.” Moving even further away from their original calling as scientists, the warmists spend considerable time discussing the tactics of convincing the masses that global warming should be a major concern. For instance, one states: “Having established scale and urgency, the political challenge is then to turn this from an argument about the cost of cutting emissions — bad politics — to one about the value of a stable climate — much better politics. . . . the most valuable thing to do is to tell the story about abrupt change as vividly as possible.”

To win the public debate nothing was out of bounds. For instance, Mann, incensed that some skeptics had trashed his work, wrote to Jones, saying he had “been talking with folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre . . . perhaps the same needs to be done with this Kennan guy . . . I believe that the only way to stop these people is by exposing them and discrediting them.” Steve McIntyre and Doug Kennan are well-known skeptics. In fact, McIntyre’s work was crucial in proving that Mann’s infamous “hockey stick graph” — the heart of the United Nations’ IPCC-3 report — was a fraud. Rather than contest McIntyre’s findings with evidence and data, Mann decided that his best alternative was to smear his challenger’s reputation. Skeptics always had to be on the watch for Mann’s spiteful attacks. But what is interesting is that many of his fellow warmists had a low opinion of his work. Despite this, they were slow to criticize Mann — partly because they did not want to give the skeptics any more ammunition, but also because they were afraid of him. As one warmist wrote to Jones, Mann was a “serious enemy” and “vindictive.”

Worried that their e-mail discussions might turn a spotlight on their fraud, Jones and others were constantly advising one another on how to hide the evidence. For instance, Jones once sent out an e-mail stating: “I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process.” To which one warmist replied: “Phil, thanks for your thoughts — guarantee there will be no dirty laundry in the open.”

Still, none of this deception would be possible without the active collusion of much of the global press, which has swallowed the warmist agenda hook, line, and sinker. As one BBC journalist wrote to Phil Jones after running a piece slightly skeptical of the warmist position:

I can well understand your unhappiness at our running the other piece. But we are constantly being savaged by the loonies for not giving them any coverage at all, especially as you say with the COP [Conference of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol] in the offing, and being the objective impartial (ho ho) BBC that we are, there is an expectation in some quarters that we will every now and then let them say something. I hope though that the weight of our coverage makes it clear that we think they are talking through their hats.

What is even more troubling is what appears to be the active collusion of government agencies charged with looking out for the public welfare. In one Jones e-mail, he discusses hiding data, making it clear that the U.S. Department of Energy was an active participant in his fraud: “Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get — and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.” I hope someone in Congress is interested in why the Department of Energy was involved in hiding climate data. One might assume that it would be harder to make an investment in Solyndra if the global-warming threat was proven a fraud.

My favorite quote of all those uncovered was from the climate criminal who asked his colleagues what would happen to them if it was discovered that climate change was “mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation,” as much of the evidence shows. He answers his own question: “They’ll kill us probably.”

— Jim Lacey is professor of strategic studies at the Marine Corps War College. He is the author of the recently released The First Clash and Keep from All Thoughtful Men. The opinions presented here are entirely his own and do not represent those of the Department of Defense or any of its members.

For those who are more mathematically inclined than I, how many Carbon Credits do I need to purchase to offset the CO2 Emissions of setting Al Gore on fire?

I'm saving up and want to make sure I have enough.

There are simply to many people. Half of them are takers. Get ride of them and that will solve lots of our problems. Not advocating genocide. Just saying

You mean the fleabaggers demanding free tuition and just about everything else, that is a good definition of takers.

Hmm, not even Fox News will cover this anymore. I guess noone is listening.

Global warming on the back burner
 

At this point in time I,d be more concerned about certain countries economies collapsing since it will be much more of a game changer for all involved.

it cuts both ways
 

It is true that no one is covering the ongoing scandal. It is also true that no one is covering the big climate meeting in Durban.

Most people recognize, I think, that intentionally beggaring the economy to adjust the ppm of a trace gas is not a game to be played in tough economic times. The sun is setting on Gorist alarmism--good riddance.

WW

Re: Climategate--The Final Chapter
 

Of course not.

She's speaking metaphorically about unregulated capitalism destroying man's habitat. There are plenty of models and evidence on that.

If you're smart enough to know better but just don't care about your grandchildren
and everyone else's, that fits the definition of a sociopath.

This seems like the kind of post someone with the tag line of "The G.D. Captain" would use.

Let me see scientist not releasing all data to support their position, emails indicating a conspiracy to hide data, telling others to discredit anyone who disagrees and all to change the way the world lives and shape it to a world that the enlighten ones want to create.
Did I miss anything?
G.D. Captain

You would think everyone would but it is sad to see that certain extremists do not care that just about every country is having SEVERE economic issues and the last thing they need and the last thing the airline/travel/hotel/restaurant/tourism businesses need is a phony tax scheme added to their business structure.

Cap & Trade is NOT the answer. It is just like the derivatives that were sold from one bank to another. Lipstick on a pig.

Re: Climategate--The Final Chapter
 

You tell me.

The Real “Climate-Gate” Climate Denial Crock of the Week

Now how about a cartoon?

Climategate mark 2 -- the quotes and the context - YouTube

Know whats funny, nature is pushed "beyond its limits" when you dont have private property rights and nature is respected where you do.

Think you regulated socialists would figure that out. But since this has never been about ecology and always been about power, my guess you already know it. Funny how the sociopathic communists have all become sociopathic greenies. Hitler and Stalin pretended to care about other peoples grandchildren when they made their power grabs.

According to the Canadian news it looks like Canada is getting ready to get out of the Kyoto treaty before 2012 .
I agree with the lipstick on a pig analogy.


Ally

It's all smoke and mirrors, a distraction (if you will) from what is really going on. I find it funny that a bunch of darwinians think it's necessary to save the earth. Shows the arrogance that they ACTUALLY believe that human beings have the power to destroy the earth.
We were given dominion, how about taking care of and respecting fellow mankind. Last time I checked, "thou shall not light an incadesent bulb" wasn't one of the ten.

Gosh, you really clinched the argument there, anyone who doesn't buy into the scam is a sociopath.

We cannot escape the irrefutable logic. This also means most of us are sociopaths, I guess we will just have to live with the shame.:D

Unregulated capitalism? You can't possibly be serious. A quick check shows that there are roughly 2.75 million federal employees--many of whom toil daily to micromanage the economy and our lives. These same employees are on pace to give us 80,000 pages of 2011 rules by the end of the year. The economy that we have in the United States may be many things, but it is not capitalist and it is not unregulated.

There are a lot of economists who have "plenty models and evidence" that unregulated socialism will destroy our economic habitat. Do you care about the poverty you and your ilk will inflict on your grandchildren and everyone else's. Or are you a sociopath?

WW

I must say that article from "The Nation" was one of the most disjointed works of demented blather I have ever laid eyes on, the attribution of the failure of the climate change proponents to the existence of cranky old white males was indeed a masterstroke.

Not a lick of science in the whole disaster, just a rant on how to use a manufactured crisis to "put wind in the sails"(a lot of wind, really) of the "progressive" effort to kill capitalism.:D


Ok, this explains it:The Nation is the oldest continuously published weekly magazine in the United States. The periodical, devoted to politics and culture, is self-described as "the flagship of the left." Founded on July 6, 1865, It is published by The Nation Company, L.P., at 33 Irving Place, New York City.[3]
The Nation has lost money in all but three or four years of operation...

You like the long shots kiddo.

WOW we finally agree on something. How sad that some of these sociopaths(your words) are hell bent on destroying whats left of the global economies of many nations. They do not care that these phony taxes(which do nothing but put money in a new breed of bankers pockets) will absolutely destroy so many businesses and keep so many people unemployed and or financially dependent on governments that can no longer sustain them. What kind of cruel joke are these sociopaths playing on our grandchildren????? Their future sure looks bleak.

Re: Climategate--The Final Chapter
 

Straw dog argument. Destroying the earth has never been the concern. We are, in
fact, destroying man's habitat.

For every one degree C increase in average global temperature rise, we will see a
10% decrease in crop yields. That's huge. At a 3 degree C average global temperature increase, the US will see breadbasket states like Kansas and Nebraska turning into desert states like Arizona and Nevada. That is going to happen in your grandchildren's lifetime.

Part I
Gwynne Dyer on "Climate Wars: The Fight for Survival as the World Overheats"

Part II
A Debate on Geoengineering: Vandana Shiva vs. Gwynne Dyer

Thank you. When you abandon all science, logic and reason we understand you have lost and will always lose.

When the market collapses for trading carbon credits, the truth is told, and money always tells the truth.

Sociopathic behavior never garners any credit in the real world.

So show me your evidence that the Northern Hemishpere has shown any warming since 1998.

BTW here are some crop yield stats for you:

NASS Releases Crop Production Historical Report

Pain in the arse when your predictions flop isnt it.

The earth has been here for billions of years. In that time, temps have risen, temps have fallen. Water levels have risen, water levels have fallen. Deserts are now oceans, oceans are now deserts. Continents have moved thousands of miles. The ice age came and went. ALL BEFORE MAN WAS HERE.

Now you want to tell me that man has managed to throw our habitat off kilter in just 100 years of industrialization?????

And on top of that you want to tell me the way to fix it is to tax it??? The only thing that accomplishes is making billions for people who are already rich, while causing more financial hardships on the working class. What complete utter nonsense!!!!!

Re: Climategate--The Final Chapter
 

Why should I waste my time with you? You obviously don't believe anything
I put up here. You apparently think NASA, NOAA, the Pentagon, the National Academy of Science, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science are all dirty hippy tree hugging lefty radicals that can't be believed.

It's no secret that 2000 to 2010 was the warmest decade on record.

Skeptics can be persuaded by evidence. You're a climate crank and I can't
fix that.

http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/ha...tml#post604729

It's December now. Is Texas still on fire?

Your fact/hypothesis/whatever is contrary to recent experience. The calculated global temperature increase in the 20th century varies, but was at least 1C. Crop yields did not go down; rather, they increased dramatically.

WW

So I take it you cant show any evidence of global warming since 1998. Didnt think so.

Funny how all those guys you mention get a government paycheck. Think they are for or against big government? You know, follow the money.

How about those record crop yields.

And of course the Eastern Block Communists were/are so concerned for the environment!?!:D:D

Apparently you haven't looked into some of the travesties good old mother Russia has perpetrated on the planet? Toxic rivers, phisile grade plutonium waste mixed into the soil, that little ole nuclear powered ice breaker that cooked off up on the polar sea ice, unfiltered coal fired plants, Chernobyl, the list goes on and on.
Have you ever flown over mainland China in the winter? Every town has a black coal soot plume that extends for miles downwind. The snow is stained grey for miles. I know, I know they still don't put out as much carbon as we do but they are catching up fast and they have absolutely no concern or care for environmental issues. Just like they couldn't give a crap about feeding melamine to infants or building schools with sub standard concrete and killing school children in the subsequent collapses. yeah captialism is way worse than communism!!:rolleyes:


Cute, the sociopath labeling thing is really taking off here on APC. Mr. Skyhigh implanted a seed in the minds of the unstable it seems.

The real message here is that the climate change people can fix all of our "problems" if we just give them complete control over our lives.

The human experience of the last couple of centuries has made it clear that the most dangerous thing to our survival is government. Leftnik, rightnik, it doesn't matter-the more power you cede to the state the more likely it is to kill you. But it will be for your own good.:D

Only 97% of climatologists think humans are causing global warming and everybody knows NASA is a bunch of uneducated hippies. Besides, anything that would cause me to questions my firmly held assumptions or alter my behavior, by definition cannot exist. Global warming is another myth cooked up by Spendocrats to keep the boot of the government on the necks of hard-working Americans, just like so-called honey-mustard. The free market always has and always will fix everyone's problems. I still spray my yard with DDT and I haven't seen a bug (or a bird) in decades! I don't care what so-called scientific data says. I knew global warming was a scam the minute I heard about it -- there was ice on my grass when I woke this morning! Where's your global warming now? I'm 100% convinced that I'm 100% correct and anyone who disagrees with me is either a moron or a crook. Nothing anyone says will pierce my veil of self-assurance.

Apparently some of us have not read the emails, that would make them email deniers. Bitter clingers of hockey stick graphs and dreams of world domination.

There is nothing quite as funny as someone pointing out an error in others while they are making the same error.:D

Crazy as it may seem, some of us are not ready to give up control of the Earth for something that is easily fixed by a quarter degree adjustment of our climate control.

Well if you could show me one of your models that will accurately predict the weather next month maybe I could believe one of your models that has, for the last 40 years, failed to predict the weather 10 years out.

Give up on your DDT argument, that has proven to be a genocidal joke played by your fellow lefties on th 3rd world.

How many "climatologist" were there 30 years ago? Do you think the explosive growth in the career field would be the same if they had to turn a profit instead of sucking at the government teat?

97% of the climatologists think humans are the cause of global warming. 100% of the Mrs. Johnson Kindergarten class thinks the sun is at least partially responsible. Who is more likely correct?

n2264j,

I see how you conveniently glossed over this comment and didn't respond. Is it because you don't have a logical argument and are hoping we didn't notice? I also find it interesting that you are the only person in this debate that holds your views, but I guess the only logical reason for this is that you are the only intelligent one of the bunch and everyone else hur is just a bunc o igits.

Unfortunate really
 

From my experiences in life if you continually push out falsehoods through propaganda then after awhile a certain segment of the population will stop thinking for themselves and start to beleive in it .



Ally

+1. You just described Fox News. Too funny!!:D

And ABC,NBC,BBC,CNN,MSNBC. What is funny is that it describes all of them. I don't fault them for it, it is after all their business.


“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Joseph Goebbels

Even this guy would let the truth out once in a while.

"For every one degree C increase in average global temperature rise, we will see a
10% decrease in crop yields. That's huge. "


Is the world warming? I don't know and there is nothing I can do if it is, but I can tell you from personal experience that crop yields are going up, and have been for the last 30 years that I've been involved in agriculture. So if your claiming a warmer earth is causing a decrease in crop yield I have to throw the BS flag on that play.

Hey I resent your including NBC in your list. They are well known for their balance on man frying mother gaia. See:

Green Your Routine - NBC Site

Any rumors that this allowed them to write off their schedule for the month to help Parent GE (No green conflict there) pay zero taxes for the year is simply more right wing propaganda.

Re: Climategate--The Final Chapter
 

Notwithstanding you flag, that's exactly what I'm claiming. We are bumping up against the "crop yield" threshold, beyond which past experience becomes irrelevant. If you're
in your 20s, you will live to see food riots in this country.

The Irony of Climate | Worldwatch Institute

Washington Post, Lester Brown explain how extreme weather, climate change drive record food prices. | ThinkProgress