Global Warming Debates,
Conduct of Scientists and Some Pointed Questions:
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 have chosen to delete e-mails
and other data and communication in defiance of England’s FOIA [Freedom of
Information Act] and encouraged others to do so.
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
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.
This event, which was organized by Maria Hsia and John Huang, raised $166,750
for the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Much of this money was raised
illegally; the laws broken were far from being trivial or outdated. There were
$55,000 in contributions laundered through monks and nuns, who made the
contributions in their own names and were then reimbursed by the temple from
its general funds. At least three of the contributors were foreign nationals.
In addition the temple, which enjoys tax-exempt status as a religious
institution, was used illegally for partisan politics. Insofar as the monks
were reimbursed with temple funds that came from tax-free donations, American
taxpayers indirectly subsidized Gore's fundraising effort.http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=al_gore_and_the_temple_of_doom
[10] http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
[11] Climate legacy of 'hockey stick' Professor David R. Legates
of the University of Delaware claims flaws in the data and
methods used to fashion the hockey stick mean it can no longer be viewed as
valid.
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 in 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
08/04/09 3:51 PM EDT http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Scientific-evidence-now-points-to-global-cooling-contrary-to-UN-alarmism-52455392.html
[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
2009http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/23/the-knights-carbonic/
No comments:
Post a Comment