Abstract: “Scientists’ have performed poorly in their core duties and have collected in little political claques that appear to exist to deflect criticism and have also suppressed or erased data, but have strangely retained the respect of the UN who dearly want to get some money from Cap and Trade fees and care not a whit if the science is real or phony. It is strange that much of this ‘science’ seems to coincide with Al Gore’s business adventures[1] in Cap and Trade. Critics of Global Warming—now downgraded to ‘Climate Change’ as the errant computer models ungraciously gave the wrong signal, have been marginalized, abused and their papers rejected. The damming e-mails, presumable protected by law under FOIA legislation in two countries have been diligently deleted. The raw data, presumably free of political massages of various sorts have been deleted[2] and are expediently absent for subsequent analysis. If you put money on the drum some ‘scientists’ will dance to any tune you select.
We open this essay with a statement of faith that properly ranks with palm readers, bingo addicts and certain Methodists. Apparently, the IPCC has ‘settled’ the matter of Global Warming at least in their minds.
“"I don't think that's anything that is, quite frankly, among most people, in dispute anymore," he said during Monday's press briefing.”[3]-- Gibbs: Despite research dispute, 'climate change is happening' By Tony Romm Whitehouse 1 Dec 2009.
This must give us all complete confidence. But, there is more:
True Belief:
“There is "virtually no possibility" of a few scientists biasing the advice given to governments by the UN's top global warming body, its chair said today.”[4]-- Leaked emails won't harm UN climate body, says chairman Rajendra Pachauri
Translated, the means that if the projections are phony [or no]t we still accept the findings and want the money. Are we, or not, involved in some anthropogenic contamination of our planet that leads to global warming? Perhaps it does not matter to the UN and other parasites. We can at least wonder about some of the ‘science’ in this matter [even thought it is ‘happening’] because of the following questions points, comments and more:
[1] The matter has been deemed ‘settled by some politician [Al Gore][5] who is corrupt and has solicited or accepted bribes[6] in the past and is considered a ‘climate pirate.’[7]
Details on the settled science:
“"This isn't a scientific paper, it's absolutely awful," said Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK”[8]—e-mail by Phil Jones directed at critic Professor Legates of University of Delaware. [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]
Any paper that questions or contradicts what is ‘accepted’ by a cabal is apparently not science and is consideredabsolutely awful we read.
“In another e-mail, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann, professor Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona and professor Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst: "I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!”[9].
Hiding something?
Suppression of evidence:
“Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.”[10]
"I can't see either … being in the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"—Phil Jones
[2] Critics of GW have been smeared[11] and their work ignored and papers canned by ‘peer review’ committees who filter the negative evidence.
“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…What do others think?”
This is science?
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.” It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”[12]
Why not silence the opposition so we can say that we are unanimous!
[3] The computer models and such have been ‘predicting’ that that the earth’s temperature is increasing and now, against their political wishes, the earth has treacherously defied political correctness and she lowers her temperature.
“Opponents of the Waxman-Markey “cap and trade” bill would do well to invoke recent scientific studies that show global surface temperatures have not increased since 1998, contrary to what climate models have predicted.”[13]--Scientific evidence now points to global cooling, contrary to U.N. alarmism By: Kevin Mooney
[4] Data has been deliberately erased and only the massaged versions apparently remain.
The original data set has been deleted.
[5] Those at East Anglia England
This is probably a felony.
These are the kind of people we have in our government and world ‘government’ as the UN is sometimes alluded to in public and in ‘science’ where they spend billions of dollars that are apparently politically oriented. Even ardent supporters like George Monbiot at the Guardian have called for his resignation.[14]
This is a disgrace and yet they still have a chance to divert a trillion dollars worth of taxes into the hands of many people probably for nothing.
rycK
Comments: ryckki@gmail.com
[3] Gibbs: Despite research dispute, 'climate change is happening' By Tony Romm Whitehouse 1 Dec 2009.http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/69797-gibbs-despite-research-dispute-climate-change-is-happening
[4] Leaked emails won't harm UN climate body, says chairman
Rajendra Pachauri says there is 'virtually no possibility' of a few scientists biasing IPCC's advice, after UAE hacking breach By James Randerson
guardian.co.uk. Sunday 29 November 2009 17.03 GMT http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/ipcc-climate-change-leaked-emails
[5] “I want to be polite to you,” Mr. Gore responded. But, no. “The scientific community has gone through this chapter and verse. We have long since passed the time when we should pretend this is a ‘on the one hand, on the other hand’ issue,” he said. “It’s not a matter of theory or conjecture, for goodness sake,” he addedhttp://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/03/05/a-heated-exchange-al-gore-confronts-his-critics/
The biggest lie in Al Gore's comments is this: "The science is settled." It's what practitioners of the dark arts of public manipulation refer to as a "lizard brain" phrase, that parks itself deep into the subconscious of listeners, thanks to a comforting appeal to authority figures (scientists), and an assurance they've got it right (settled). Lizard brains are where instinctive, knee jerk reactions are generated often before the person consciously realises.-- Ian Wishart[Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]
Air Con: The Seriously Inconvenient Truth About Global Warming (Perfect Paperback)http://www.amazon.com/Air-Con-Seriously-Inconvenient-Warming/dp/0958240140
“The Buddhist temple. In April 1996, Gore attended a fundraising luncheon at the Hsi Lai Buddhist temple in Hacienda Heights , California
[7] Al Gore: Climate Pirate by Steven Milloy
[11] Climate legacy of 'hockey stick' Professor David R. Legates of the University of Delaware
The temperature record uses data from many sources including ice cores
"There is an exaggeration of recent trends, suggesting that 1998 was the warmest year, and that the 1990s were the warmest decade of the millennium," Dr Legates told BBC News Online.
"There is an underestimation of the uncertainty, because they did not take into account other errors associated with estimating large-scale trends and temperature from observational data."
The central thrust of Legates' article is rejected by other climate scientists, who claim that the sudden upsurge in temperatures since 1900 is all too real.
"This isn't a scientific paper, it's absolutely awful," said Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia Norwich , UK
Professor Jones and Mann extended the 1,000-year temperature record back to AD 200 for a research paper published in 2003. But the sharp warming trend in the post-industrial age was still clear.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3569604.stm
[13] Scientific evidence now points to global cooling, contrary to U.N. alarmism By: KEVIN MOONEY Commentary Staff Writer
[14] “ I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed. By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian, 23rd November 2009 http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/23/the-knights-carbonic/
No comments:
Post a Comment