PDA

View Full Version : Climategate-Copenhagen-Goldman carbon trade scam



Supercilious
12-02-09, 01:56 AM
It seems the Climategate scandal is going to derail the carbon cap trade futures scam. (I understand Goldman Sachs was very interested in trading carbon offset futures (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/01/goldman-on-both-sides-of-carbon-trade.html))

With the Climategate scandal (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/11/23/climategate.aspx) it seems this dream of introducing a new global stealth tax paid to a group of a few private banks by the whole world, may crumble. The Copenhagen conference which was meant to create a new supranational enforcement system to guarantee the profits of a corrupt banking elite, by imposing a hidden private tax on energy consumption, may not succeed due to public outrage.

In Australia the Manbearpig bill has been defeated. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/climate_australia)

Already, the Indian government has signalled it is not ready for a firm commitment. (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-not-to-follow-China-on-climate-commitments/articleshow/5289045.cms)

The environmentalist movement is in disarray, (except a few eco-fanatics) and the general message of reason sounds like this

<object height="340" width="560">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uEggt0ldQUI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="340" width="560"></object>

Plus there is the ridicule....:cool:

<object height="344" width="425">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nEiLgbBGKVk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"></object>

What do you think? Will Goldman Sachs and other banks involved in carbon offset trade (they already have an OTC future market set up for this) be able to impose this global tax, even if AGW has been proved to be a fraud?

Maybe one day we will say about the Climategate something like:
Never in the history of humankind have so many (the whole planet) owned so much to so few (a couple of hackers)! :cool:

PS1 (Alex Jones has a field day with this, because it's clear he was right all along (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuNLahhZFJ0) about the AGW scam)
PS2 In Al Gore's firm for climate change financial milking (which has a the very appropriate name of Blood&Gore :)) the other partner is David Blood, ex Goldman partner.
PS3 For those who do not believe in Goldman Sachs conspiracies, and still believe we are post Peak Oil, I recommend reading this excellent piece in Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/28816321/inside_the_great_american_bubble_machine/3) which explains how CFTC had secretly given permission to Goldman Sachs to take larger positions then other traders (this also, probably settles, the old Oil Bubble thread controversy :))
PS4 This is the last message I'll post on iTulip for a while (if I won't be able to be home for X-mas). Therefore, just in case, I would like to wish everybody a pre-emptive Merry X-mas, Hanukkah, Kwanza, Yule etc. and all the best for 2010!

For those who are muslim, I hope I'm not too late to offer a Happy Eid!

(I'm off to the airport. Cab is here.)

doom&gloom
12-02-09, 02:11 AM
Merry Xmas to you too dude!

Supercilious
12-02-09, 03:18 AM
One more from the airport (I don't know from who am I stealing this Wi-Fi connection :))

For those of you who enjoyed the Charlie Rose clip with Sir James Goldsmith who warned us in 1994 about the effects of GATT and corporatist controlled globalization, there is an equivalent: Lord Monckton

Of course nobody want to listen these days to Lord Christopher Monckton exactly as nobody wanted to listen then to Sir James Goldsmith.

Here is a short excerpt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAkiDhS0XIA
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RAkiDhS0XIA&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RAkiDhS0XIA&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


And here is the full St. Paul speech, on October 14th, 2009:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/stij8sUybx0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/stij8sUybx0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

quigleydoor
12-02-09, 10:24 PM
I just watched the Monckton excerpt and I'm otherwise uninformed on Copenhagen. Can anyone help me grasp the scale of powers granted by this treaty? Compare it to, say, WTO?

c1ue
12-03-09, 12:03 AM
Monckton is overblowing it somewhat, but he is correct in that the Copenhagen is intended to be a supranational bureaucracy.

The point of the treaty is that both monitoring and apportionment of CO2 'pollutability' are required and there will be a new bureaucracy created to do so.

What is likely true is that this bureaucracy will be UN derived in some way.

The WTO - on the other hand - is primarily a formalized trade dispute resolution process. The WTO does not, for example, actually monitor trade for trade violations nor does it apportion trade.

If you are interested in the details of what Monckton speaks to, the text is here:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/ngo-copenhagen-treaty-legal

Yes, it is that type of treaty...

unlucky
12-03-09, 08:47 AM
Those interested in the climate debate (who haven't already made up their minds) might find the site climatedebatedaily.com (http://www.climatedebatedaily.com) useful, as I did. It is run by two "philosophers", one of whom is inclined to believe that AGW is real, and one who believes it is probably false. They try to locate the best articles on the web for and against, and present them side-by-side in two columns. From the articles I've looked at, they do seem to have rounded up higher quality stuff (on both sides) than your typical Internet rant.

we_are_toast
12-03-09, 09:04 AM
I just watched the Monckton excerpt and I'm otherwise uninformed on Copenhagen. Can anyone help me grasp the scale of powers granted by this treaty? Compare it to, say, WTO?

What will come out of Copenhagen is nothing like WTO. When China joined the WTO the entire worlds economic system changed dramatically. What will come out of Copenhagen will be a bunch of goals that require little if any changes and a bunch of photos of politicians shaking hands. The targets will be designed so everyone can meet them without any difficulty and there won't be any enforcement. It's pure political theatre. Far bigger changes were probably made when Obama was in China.

WDCRob
12-03-09, 09:17 AM
We have a whole new Ranter and Raver forum for this kind of luddite swill, called "Climate Change."

The ignorance here (of all places) is astonishing to me.

Oh, speaking of...

I have a new batch of WDCRob's Magical Snake Oil Elixer - only $1000 dollars an ounce. Paypal only please to: WDCRob@URASucker.com.

c1ue
12-03-09, 09:20 AM
When China joined the WTO the entire worlds economic system changed dramatically.

This is a true statement - China was allowed to joined the WTO without having to even cursorily meet any of the normal WTO regulatory or other types of hurdles.

But the fact remains that the WTO is not a bureaucracy, more of a kangaroo court system.

Taking the theoretical US separation of powers as a template: the WTO has only judicial authority - not legislative nor executive.

Copenhagen will have judicial and legislative; executive authority is assumed by the act of signing on.

This is what Monckton vitriolically refers to.

skidder
12-03-09, 10:13 AM
This is a true statement - China was allowed to joined the WTO without having to even cursorily meet any of the normal WTO regulatory or other types of hurdles.

But the fact remains that the WTO is not a bureaucracy, more of a kangaroo court system.

Taking the theoretical US separation of powers as a template: the WTO has only judicial authority - not legislative nor executive.



Copenhagen will have judicial and legislative; executive authority is assumed by the act of signing on.

This is what Monckton vitriolically refers to.


So to summarize, what is coming out of Copenhagen is not just a bunch of Politicians shaking hands and posing for the camera's, but a clear usurpation of U.S. sovereignty. It allows a foreign, unelected (not that it would matter) body to impose rules and taxes upon US citizens. I find it hard to believe that this shit passes muster with some of the folks here on this board as well as with the idiots pretending to provide "checks and balances" over in D.C. If the camel gets his head under this particular tent it is all over but the crying for any semblance of a "sovereign republic" in the future.

Yes, by all means, let's go forward with this plan after having witnessed data tampering and evidence of systemic fraud in concluding that AGW is actually for real. When's the last time you heard of an actual scientific research paper whose authors dumped the data it was based upon? This whole deal stinks to high heaven and looks to me to be pushed upon the masses in order to generate yet one more tax revenue stream for the elite insiders as well as a consolidation of power and control.

Roughneck
12-03-09, 01:40 PM
Almost two years ago a friend who has rural property was contacted about selling his "carbon credits". This thing has been in the works for a while.

Master Shake
12-03-09, 01:48 PM
If the camel gets his head under this particular tent it is all over but the crying for any semblance of a "sovereign republic" in the future.



For the Elites, the concept of national sovereignty is soooo 19th century.

I'm sure many AGH Kool-Aid drinkers here feel similarly.

raja
12-03-09, 02:13 PM
c1ue,

What do you think of this (http://www.itulip.com/forums/Since%20the%20reported%20theft%20of%20emails%20fro m%20the%20Climatic%20Research%20Unit%20%28CRU%29%2 0at%20the%20University%20of%20East%20Anglia,%20con servative%20media%20figures%20have%20aggressively% 20claimed%20that%20those%20emails%20undermine%20th e%20overwhelming%20scientific%20consensus%20that%2 0human%20activities%20are%20causing%20climate%20ch ange,%20dubbing%20the%20supposed%20scandal%20%22Cl imategate.%22%20But%20these%20critics%20have%20lar gely%20rested%20their%20claims%20on%20outlandish%2 0distortions%20and%20misrepresentations%20of%20the %20contents%20of%20the%20stolen%20emails,%20greatl y%20undermining%20their%20dubious%20smears.) . . . emailed to me by a friend this morning (I sent him a copy of your analysis that you posted a few days ago):
"Climategate" exposed: Conservative media distort stolen emails in latest attack on global warming consensus

Since the reported theft of emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, conservative media figures have aggressively claimed that those emails undermine the overwhelming scientific consensus that human activities are causing climate change, dubbing the supposed scandal "Climategate." But these critics have largely rested their claims on outlandish distortions and misrepresentations of the contents of the stolen emails, greatly undermining their dubious smears.
The article goes on to give a point-by-point rebuttal.

c1ue
12-03-09, 03:44 PM
Raja,

The link you posted doesn't work for me, but putting the headline into Google yielded:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010002

Looking into each item of the refutation...



CLAIM: Email reveals that Jones used "trick" to distort data and hide decline in temperatures


BECK: How about Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia? "I have just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years to hide the decline." Yes, he's talking about a trick that another scientist previously used in a peer-reviewed journal to apparently hide the decline in temperatures -- incredible. [Fox News' Glenn Beck, 11/23/09 (http://mediamatters.org/research/200911230052)]


In a November 23 editorial (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.investors.com%2FNewsAndAnal ysis%2FArticle.aspx%3Fid%3D513329), Investor's Business Daily stated: "In one e-mail sent to Michael Mann, director of Penn State University's Earth System Science Center, Raymond Bradley, a climatologist at the University of Massachusetts, and Malcolm Hughes, a professor of dendrochronology at the University of Arizona's Laboratory for Tree-Ring Research, Jones speaks of the 'trick' of filling in gaps of data in order to hide evidence of temperature decline."
REALITY: "Decline" refers to unreliable tree-ring data, not instrumental temperatures. In a November 26 article (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mcall.com%2Fnews%2Fall-a1_5mann.7099473nov26%2C0%2C7714606.story), The Morning Call of Allentown, Pennsylvania, reported that Penn State scientist Michael Mann -- whose "trick" was referenced in Jones' email (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eastangliaemails.com%2Femai ls.php%3Feid%3D154%26filename%3D942777075.txt) -- "said his trick, or 'trick of the trade,' for the Nature chart was to combine data from tree-ring measurements, which record world temperatures from 1,000 years ago until 1960, with actual temperature readings for 1961 through 1998" because "scientists have discovered that, for temperatures since 1960, tree rings have not been a reliable indicator." Jones has also stated (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uea.ac.uk%2Fmac%2Fcomm%2Fme dia%2Fpress%2F2009%2Fnov%2Fhomepagenews%2FCRUupdat e) that it is "well known" that tree ring data "does not show a realistic trend of temperature after 1960," and the CRU has said that "[t]he 'decline' in this set of tree-ring data should not be taken to mean that there is any problem with the instrumental temperature data." In a November 20 post, RealClimate.org's staff (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.realclimate.org%2Findex.php %2Farchives%2Fcategory%2Fextras%2Fcontributor-bios%2F), which is comprised of several working climate scientists, including Mann, similarly stated (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.realclimate.org%2Findex.php %2Farchives%2F2009%2F11%2Fthe-cru-hack%2F):

As for the 'decline', it is well known that Keith Briffa's maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the "divergence problem"-see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.realclimate.org%2Findex.php %2Farchives%2F2008%2F09%2Fprogress-in-millennial-reconstructions%2F)) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while 'hiding' is probably a poor choice of words (since it is 'hidden' in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
Several scientists have stated that the word "trick" is being misinterpreted. The (UK) Guardian reported (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fenvironmen t%2F2009%2Fnov%2F20%2Fclimate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails) in a November 20 article that Bob Ward (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.lse.ac.uk%2FgranthamInstit ute%2Fwhoswho.aspx), director of policy and communications at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, said of Jones' email: "It does look incriminating on the surface, but there are lots of single sentences that taken out of context can appear incriminating. ... You can't tell what they are talking about. Scientists say 'trick' not just to mean deception. They mean it as a clever way of doing something -- a short cut can be a trick." RealClimate also explained (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.realclimate.org%2Findex.php %2Farchives%2F2009%2F11%2Fthe-cru-hack%2F) that "the 'trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term 'trick' to refer to ... 'a good way to deal with a problem', rather than something that is 'secret', and so there is nothing problematic in this at all."


This has been discussed in detail in various posts in the Climate Change section. While the word 'trick' can be used in a number of ways, it is much harder to explain "hiding".

Secondly in the context of Mann and the hockey stick - there has been a lot of public work done (by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKittrick among others) on how misleading processing is used to distort appearances.

If you are interested, a very detailed breakdown on what was done is at:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=166

Thirdly the entire point of the hockey stick debate is picking and choosing between different types of temperature records in order to obtain some semblence of historical temperature records.

Anytime there is a single graph where different portions are tied together from completely different sources, the integrity of the information obtained must be carefully screened.

I do agree that the email itself is not a smoking gun for fraud - it is when the actual code is looked at after which considerations of at least subconscious bias bubble up. Google Harry_read_me

The allegation of manipulation in order to hide (or more correctly overwrite) other older temperature records - that is real though not necessarily from a sinister motive.



CLAIM: Trenberth's "travesty" email exposes private doubts about whether global warming is occurring


BECK: But first, let's start with the science that has been so settled for all these years. What are these guys saying behind closed doors about their so-called bullet-proof consensus? Well, Kevin Trenberth, he's a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. He wrote, quote: "The fact is, we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it's a travesty that we can't." Incorrect data? Inadequate systems? Yeah. Travesty, pretty good word for it. [Glenn Beck, 11/23/09 (http://mediamatters.org/research/200911230052)]


In a November 24 Human Events post (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.humanevents.com%2Farticle.p hp%3Fid%3D34550), James Delingpole asserted that the Trenberth email reveals a scientist "[c]oncealing private doubts about whether the world is really heating up."


Citing the Trenberth email, Robert Tracinski wrote in a November 24 commentary (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.realclearpolitics.com%2Fart icles%2F2009%2F11%2F24%2Fthe_fix_is_in_99280.html) at RealClearPolitics.com that "[t]hese e-mails show, among many other things, private admissions of doubt or scientific weakness in the global warming theory. In acknowledging that global temperatures have actually declined for the past decade, one scientist asks, 'where the heck is global warming?... The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.'"
REALITY: Trenberth's email referred to "inadequate" system of observing short-term variability, not long-term trend. In the October 12 email (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eastangliaemails.com%2Femai ls.php%3Feid%3D1048%26filename%3D1255352257.txt), Trenberth cited "my own article on where the heck is global warming" and wrote: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate" [emphasis added].
Trenberth published similar comments in the journal article he cited. Wired's Threat Level blog reported (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wired.com%2Fthreatlevel%2F2 009%2F11%2Fclimate-hack%2F) that Trenberth "says bloggers are missing the point he's making in the e-mail by not reading the article cited in it. That article -- An Imperative for Climate Change Planning (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wired.com%2Fimages_blogs%2F threatlevel%2F2009%2F11%2Fenergydiagnostics09final .pdf) (.pdf) -- actually says that global warming is continuing, despite random temperature variations that would seem to suggest otherwise." RealClimate.org similarly stated in a November 23 post (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.realclimate.org%2Findex.php %2Farchives%2F2009%2F11%2Fthe-cru-hack-context%2F) that "[y]ou need to read his recent paper on quantifying the current changes in the Earth's energy budget to realise why he is concerned about our inability currently to track small year-to-year variations in the radiative fluxes." Indeed, the Trenberth article referred to what he called an "incomplete explanation" of short-term climate variations, and maintained that "global warming is unequivocally happening."


The Trenberth comment is not the only one referring to the current (lack of) warming trend. I posted another email which seem explicitly clear that Dr. Phil Jones acknowledged to another climate scientist (incidentally, one of the 2 behind the MSU satellite data) that there had been a 7 year cooling trend vs 1998 as of the 2005 date of the email.

Thus whatever excuse is used with Trenberth, is much harder to cover up with this other example(s):

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=544&filename=1120593115.txt


The scientific community would come down on me in no
uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn't statistically significant.


But even then this is not truly relevant. What is relevant is that the actual temperature behavior is not matching any of the IPCC projections - not 1990, not 1995, not 2000, and not 2007.

Cooling or lack of warming, or even lack of sufficient warming, is the point.

And while Dr. Phil dismissed the trend up to 2005 as 'not statistically significant', the question begged then is what does constitute a statistically significant temperature trend that brings into question the AGW-CO2-catastrophe hypothesis?

The subtle lie being told by the AGW-CO2-catastrophe crowd is that global warming = AGW-CO2-catastrophe when in fact there are numerous other possible scenarios. This is the most common argument used by the Eco-Nazis:

Is it warming? If yes then we should limit CO2!

This line of reasoning avoids any possibility of understanding why warming is occurring. If CO2 matters. Whether humans are responsible for the trend. Whether humans can stop the trend. Whether the specific proposals will address the specific problem. etc etc.



CLAIM: Scientists conspired against academic journal because it published dissenting research


In a December 1 editorial (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtontimes.com%2Fnews% 2F2009%2Fdec%2F01%2Fdenying-the-global-cooling-cover-up%2F), The Washington Times claimed that Mann "threatened journals that had the gall to publish academic research at odds with the global-warming theocracy. Upset that the journal Climate Research had published such a paper, Mr. Mann wrote: '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.'"


In a November 27 editorial, The Wall Street Journal wrote (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10 001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html):

Mr. Mann noted in a March 2003 email, after the journal "Climate Research" published a paper not to Mr. Mann's liking, that "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!"
Mr. Mann went on to suggest that the journal itself be blackballed: "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." In other words, keep dissent out of the respected journals. When that fails, redefine what constitutes a respected journal to exclude any that publish inconvenient views.
REALITY: Mann's email cited specific paper that Climate Research editors and publisher conceded should not have been published. In the March 11, 2003, email (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eastangliaemails.com%2Femai ls.php%3Feid%3D295%26filename%3D1047388489.txt), Mann wrote that the paper by astrophysicists Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas "couldn't have cleared a 'legitimate' peer review process anywhere. That leaves only one possibility -- that the peer-review process at Climate Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board." The New York Times reported (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spaceship-earth.org%2FLetters%2FEditor%2FPolitics_Reasserts_ Itself_in_Debate_Over_Climate_Change.htm) on August 5, 2003, that the Soon-Baliunas paper "has been heavily criticized by many scientists, including several of the journal editors. The editors said last week that whether or not the conclusions were correct, that analysis was deeply flawed." The Times further noted that the "publisher of the journal, Dr. Otto Kinne, and an editor who recently became editor in chief, Dr. Hans von Storch, both said that in retrospect the paper should not have been published as written" and that von Storch resigned, "saying he disagreed with the peer-review policies":

Advocates for cuts in emissions and scientists who hold the prevailing view on warming said the hearing backfired. It proved more convincingly, they said, that the skeptical scientists were a fringe element that had to rely increasingly on industry money and peripheral scientific journals to promote their work.
The hearing featured Dr. Willie Soon, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and a co-author of a study, with Dr. Sallie Baliunas, also an astrophysicist at the center, that said the 20th-century warming trend was unremarkable compared with other climate shifts over the last 1,000 years.
But the Soon-Baliunas paper, published in the journal Climate Research this year, has been heavily criticized by many scientists, including several of the journal editors. The editors said last week that whether or not the conclusions were correct, the analysis was deeply flawed.
The publisher of the journal, Dr. Otto Kinne, and an editor who recently became editor in chief, Dr. Hans von Storch, both said that in retrospect the paper should not have been published as written. Dr. Kinne defended the journal and its process of peer review, but distanced himself from the paper.
"I have not stood behind the paper by Soon and Baliunas," he wrote in an e-mail message. "Indeed: the reviewers failed to detect methodological flaws."
Dr. von Storch, who was not involved in overseeing the paper, resigned last week, saying he disagreed with the peer-review policies.
The Senate hearing also focused new scrutiny on Dr. Soon and Dr. Baliunas's and ties to advocacy groups. The scientists also receive income as senior scientists for the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington group that has long fought limits on gas emissions. The study in Climate Research was in part underwritten by $53,000 from the American Petroleum Institute, the voice of the oil industry.
Mann: "I support the publication of 'skeptical' papers that meet the basic standards of scientific quality and merit." In response to the controversy surrounding the emails, Mann said (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fkevin-grandia%2Fmichael-mann-in-his-own-w_b_371414.html) that his email "[w]as in response to a very specific incident regarding a paper by Soon and Baliunas published in the journal 'Climate Research.' " Mann further stated: "I support the publication of 'skeptical' papers that meet the basic standards of scientific quality and merit. I myself have published scientific work that has been considered by some as representing a skeptical point of view on matters relating to climate change."


Notice how this refutation only addresses one specific email: the one talking about Climate Research.

It does not refute the other emails talking about keeping papers out of IPCC, about colluding with peer reviewers for other journals like Geophysical Research Letters, about providing 'safe' lists of reviewers for editors of journals, etc etc.

The refutation is the weakest of the lot.



CLAIM: Email reveals Mann tried to obscure Medieval Warm Period


Discussing the reportedly stolen emails on ABC News' This Week, George Will claimed that in an email, Mann "said he wished he could delete, get rid of, the medieval warming period. That lasted 600 years." [ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, 11/29/09 (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200911290003)]


In his November 24 Human Events article, Delingpole claimed that the "emails reveal a variety of dubious practices, quite contrary to what might reasonably be expected of a world-renowned climate research institution lavishly funded by the UK government." One "practice" Delingpole cited included "[a]ttempting to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (ie the period from about 900 to about 1200 when global mean temperatures were considerably warmer than they are now): '......Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back -- I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back....' "
REALITY: Mann said he wanted to identify when MWP began, not "delete, get rid of" it. Mann wrote in the June 4, 2003, email (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eastangliaemails.com%2Femai ls.php%3Feid%3D319%26filename%3D1054736277.txt) [emphasis added]:

Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back -- I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back.
Moreover, according to the November 26 Morning Call article, Mann explained that his email regarding MWP "reflected his desire to identify exactly when the Medieval Warm Period began." From the article:

Mann also said his 2003 e-mail saying ''it would nice to 'contain' the putative 'MWP''' was not a call for scientists to deny the Earth warmed naturally 1,000 years ago. He said it reflected his desire to identify exactly when the Medieval Warm Period began.


Again, this is a pretty weak defense. Mann has straight out said in numerous examples of how the MWP was to be minimized and the record 'rewritten'. Whether this was due to bias or scientific objectivity - only history will tell now that the underlying data is more available to objective inquiry.

It is quite clear, however, that the existence of an MWP with temperatures at or above present levels is a key weakness for AGW-CO2-catastrophe theory.



CLAIM: Emails were obtained through legitimate means


On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh claimed that the emails "may be from a whistleblower inside the organization who is just unhappy with what's going on," adding that "the bottom line is, the whole global warming -- manmade global warming movement is a fraud. It is a hoax. It's made-up lies." [Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show, 11/23/09 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rushlimbaugh.com%2Fhome%2Fd aily%2Fsite_112309%2Fcontent%2F01125106.guest.html )]


In his Wall Street Journal column, L. Gordon Crovitz claimed that the "emails, released by an apparent whistle-blower who used the name 'FOI,' were written by scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England. Its scientists are high-profile campaigners for the theory of global warming." [The Wall Street Journal, 11/30/09 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10 001424052748703499404574564291187747578.html)]
REALITY: CRU officials have stated that emails were obtained through "a criminal breach of our security systems." In its initial response to the reported theft, officials at the University of East Anglia stated (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uea.ac.uk%2Fmac%2Fcomm%2Fme dia%2Fpress%2F2009%2Fnov%2Fhomepagenews%2FCRUupdat e): "Recently thousands of files and emails illegally obtained from a research server at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have been posted on various sites on the web." In a statement about the controversy, CRU vice chancellor of research Trevor Davies stated (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uea.ac.uk%2Fmac%2Fcomm%2Fme dia%2Fpress%2F2009%2Fnov%2Fhomepagenews%2FCRUupdat e): "We are committed to furthering this debate despite being faced with difficult circumstances related to a criminal breach of our security systems and our concern to protect colleagues from the more extreme behaviour of some who have responded in irrational and unpleasant ways to the publication of personal information." Davies further stated, "Although we were confident that our systems were appropriate, experience has shown that determined and skilled people, who are prepared to engage in criminal activity, can sometimes hack into apparently secure systems. Highly-protected government organisations around the world have also learned this to their cost."

This is another very weak refutation. The notion that a hacker or even thousands of hackers could so thoroughly penetrate the CRU systems that they would have the patience, subject matter knowledge, and interest in assembling thousands of emails and megabytes of code and data into a package seems highly improbable.

The fact that FOIA as well as Dr. Jones are both very prominent in the data are also hints that this information had some connection.

From a purely logical standpoint: if faced with an FOIA request without an assurance of being able to deny it, is it more likely the CRU and UEA elected to do nothing until a determination was made that no information needed to be revealed? Or is it more likely that the information was assembled in case. Note that there is a 20 working day limit at which point FOIA requests must be fulfilled or denied.

If the latter case - then all sorts of possible responsible parties would then have been able to spring the leak: hackers, CRU/UEA IT, CRU/UEA admins, CRU/UEA graduate students, CRU/UEA administration, etc etc.

If the actual person leaking were a hacker, then it would be illegal. If it were a CRU/UEA person, however, it could be construed as a whistleblower act.

The other point obscured is that whoever performed the leak tried to post to both an AGW site (Real Climate) as well as a 'denier' site. Hard to reconcile that with a right wing plot.



CLAIM: Emails undermine global warming consensus


In a November 24 editorial (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtontimes.com%2Fnews% 2F2009%2Fnov%2F24%2Fhiding-evidence-of-global-cooling%2F) titled, "Hiding evidence of global cooling," The Washington Times claimed that the reportedly stolen CRU emails show that "these revelations of fudged science should have a cooling effect on global-warming hysteria and the panicked policies that are being pushed forward to address the unproven theory." Internet gossip Matt Drudge linked (http://mediamatters.org/research/200911250005) to the Times editorial on the Drudge Report using the headline: "Paper: Junk science exposed among climate-change believers."


Using the headline, "Global Warming's Waterloo?" the Fox Nation linked (http://mediamatters.org/research/200911240017) to a November 23 Gateway Pundit post asserting that "Senator James Inhofe [R-OK] will call for an investigation into" the emails.


On his Fox News show, Sean Hannity stated: "This climate change hoax, now we find out that this institute, in fact, was hiding from the people of Great Britain and the world that, in fact, climate change is a hoax, something I've been saying for a long time." [Fox News' Hannity, 11/24/09 (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200911240055)]


On his radio show, Limbaugh claimed that the "whole thing's made up" and that "it looks like substantial fraud -- a lot of evidence of substantial fraud in reporting the evidence on global warming." [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 11/20/09 (http://mediamatters.org/research/200911200051)]
REALITY: Distortions of illegally obtained documents from one group of scientists do not undermine overwhelming consensus. In a statement on the reported theft of the emails, Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, stated that "no individual or small group of scientists is in a position to exclude a peer-reviewed paper from an I.P.C.C. assessment." From Pachauri's statement (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fdotearth.blogs.nytimes.com%2F20 09%2F11%2F26%2Fpachauri-discusses-the-climate-files%2F%3Fscp%3D2%26sq%3Danglia%2520%26st%3Dcse%2 3comment9):

In summary, no individual or small group of scientists is in a position to exclude a peer-reviewed paper from an I.P.C.C. assessment. Likewise, individuals and small groups have no ability to emphasize a result that is not consistent with a range of studies, investigations, and approaches. Every layer in the process (including large author teams, extensive review, independent monitoring of review compliance, and plenary approval by governments) plays a major role in keeping I.P.C.C. assessments comprehensive, unbiased, open to the identification of new literature, and policy relevant but not policy prescriptive.
The unfortunate incident that has taken place through illegal hacking of the private communications of individual scientists only highlights the importance of I.P.C.C. procedures and practices and the thoroughness by which the Panel carries out its assessment. This thoroughness and the duration of the process followed in every assessment ensure the elimination of any possibility of omissions or distortions, intentional or accidental.
NASA's Gavin Schmidt: "There's nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax." Wired's Threat Level blog reported (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wired.com%2Fthreatlevel%2F2 009%2F11%2Fclimate-hack%2F) on November 20 that Gavin Schmidt (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.giss.nasa.gov%2Fstaff%2Fgsc hmidt%2F), a climate scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said: "There's nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax. ... There's no funding by nefarious groups. There's no politics in any of these things; nobody from the [United Nations] telling people what to do. There's nothing hidden, no manipulation. It's just scientists talking about science, and they're talking relatively openly as people in private e-mails generally are freer with their thoughts than they would be in a public forum. The few quotes that are being pulled out [are out] of context. People are using language used in science and interpreting it in a completely different way." Schmidt is a contributor to the Real Climate blog, which has stated (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.realclimate.org%2Findex.php %2Farchives%2F2009%2F11%2Fthe-cru-hack%2F) that some of the stolen CRU emails "involve people" at Real Climate.
NYT: "Hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument." The New York Times' Andrew Revkin reported on November 20 that "[t]he evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument. However, the documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists."
UCS: Our understanding of climate science is based "on the rigorous accumulation, testing and synthesis of knowledge." Peter Frumhoff, the director of science and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists and an IPCC author stated (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ucsusa.org%2Fnews%2Fpress_r elease%2Fhacked-climate-e-mails-0306.html), "We should keep in mind that our understanding of climate science is based not on private correspondence, but on the rigorous accumulation, testing and synthesis of knowledge often represented in the dry and factual prose of peer-reviewed literature. The scientific community is united in calling on U.S. policymakers (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ucsusa.org%2Fassets%2Fdocum ents%2Fssi%2Fclimate-change-statement-from.pdf) to recognize that emissions of heat-trapping gases must be dramatically reduced if we are to avoid the worst consequences of human-induced climate change."
Yale Project on Climate Change director: "[T]here's no smoking gun in the e-mails from what I've seen." Reuters stated (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reuters.com%2Farticle%2Flat estCrisis%2FidUSN23263425) that Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of the Yale Project on Climate Change said, "It shows that the process of science is not always pristine ... But there's no smoking gun in the e-mails from what I've seen." The Reuters article further noted that "the researchers involved were only a handful out of thousands across the world that have contributed to a vast convergence of data that shows the world has warmed." The article also quoted Piers Forster, an environment professor at the University of Leeds stating, "Whilst some of the e-mails show scientists to be all too human, nothing I have read makes me doubt the veracity of the peer review process or the general warming trend in the global temperature recorded."


See above on global warming arguments.

I reiterate that simplistically saying CO2 emissions must be undertaken due to global warming is a wrong statement.

In general it is instructive to note that almost every single reference made by the article outside the allegations is from a clearly aligned third party: UCS, Real Climate, etc.

Chris
12-03-09, 05:22 PM
there are no excuses for the contents of those emails. None.

Starving Steve
12-03-09, 05:29 PM
Real scientists do NOT pick and choose data to make "a trick" to support a hypothesis. That is what some religious nuts might do, not scientists.

And the statement that the e-mails from East Anglia University, Climate Study Centre are "not the smoking-gun" boggles my mind.

The e-mails prove the data was pre-selected to make "a trick" to support the failed hypothesis of CO2 causing global warming ( the AGW hypothesis )...... That kind of study is not acceptable in a university research centre.:rolleyes:

A real scientist re-checks data that doesn't fit a model or a hypothesis. The data is never massaged to make it fit. The data is never discarded or filtered. And when data doesn't fit, the hypothesis must be discarded or changed.... It really is just as simple as that: Finding a model or a hypothesis that fits all of the evidence, as economically as possible, is what real science is all about.

c1ue
12-03-09, 06:02 PM
A real scientist re-checks data that doesn't fit a model or a hypothesis. The data is never massaged to make it fit. The data is never discarded or filtered. And when data doesn't fit, the hypothesis must be discarded or changed.... It really is just as simple as that: Finding a model or a hypothesis that fits all of the evidence, as economically as possible, is what real science is all about.

Whatever your views - note that a smoking gun is also not out of the picture either.

While the emails are not IMO evidence of fraud, they certainly are evidence of bias. But bias alone doesn't constitute fraud.

The possible smoking gun may still arise from the actual models and data.

From what I've seen so far though, the shambolic mess that is there is more likely symptomatic of incompetence in programming. That at least some of these same scientists are creating computer models upon which world altering policies are being proposed - that is scary.

But even in this case it isn't fraud.

Either way I do believe progress has been made in increasing transparency in this process such that better conclusions are now more easily reached - whatever they might be.

raja
12-06-09, 06:55 PM
Looking into each item of the refutation...

I reiterate that simplistically saying CO2 emissions must be undertaken due to global warming is a wrong statement.

In general it is instructive to note that almost every single reference made by the article outside the allegations is from a clearly aligned third party: UCS, Real Climate, etc.
c1ue,

Thanks for your detailed and cogent response . . . . :o

GRG55
12-06-09, 09:25 PM
We have a whole new Ranter and Raver forum for this kind of luddite swill, called "Climate Change."...

Agree that we should make use of the Climate Change section of iTulip to keep the information and the debate in one place for easier retrieval in future...it'll certainly make metalman's job easier...


The ignorance here (of all places) is astonishing to me...

The only people that are astonished [and they deserve to be] are those that are adamant that "the debate is over". It's only just getting underway...

phirang
12-07-09, 05:24 AM
Agree that we should make use of the Climate Change section of iTulip to keep the information and the debate in one place for easier retrieval in future...it'll certainly make metalman's job easier...



The only people that are astonished [and they deserve to be] are those that are adamant that "the debate is over". It's only just getting underway...

What I find so curious is the UK MSM's militancy about carbon trading: it seems that the UK is so desperate to inflate another useless market for the City's banks that they dun anyone whenever they can! The alternative is frightening: having a real economy!

Diarmuid
12-07-09, 09:17 AM
Collection of news from recent times - I know it has been posted previous- collating it

Lord Monkton - scientific adviser to UK GOV 80s - Global warming the science. (Video)
Made Prior to the Whistle blowing leaking of data from Hadley Climate Research unit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0&feature=player_embedded


Global warming Scare Mongering

BBC: Himalayan glaciers melting deadline ‘a mistake’
.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8387737.stm



Himalayan glaciers melting deadline 'a mistake'


<!-- S BO --> <!-- S IBYL --> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="466"> <tbody><tr> <td valign="bottom"> By Pallava Bagla in Delhi
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/999999.gif

<!-- E IBYL --> <!-- S IIMA --> <table align="right" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="226"> <tbody><tr><td> http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46832000/jpg/_46832566_everestsciencephotolib226.jpg The Himalayas hold the planet's largest body of ice outside the polar caps

</td></tr> </tbody></table> <!-- E IIMA --> <!-- S SF -->The UN panel on climate change warning that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035 is wildly inaccurate, an academic says.
J Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University, says he believes the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.
He is astonished they "misread 2350 as 2035". The authors deny the claims.
Leading glaciologists say the report has caused confusion and "a catalogue of errors in Himalayan glaciology".
<!-- E SF -->The Himalayas hold the planet's largest body of ice outside the polar caps - an estimated 12,000 cubic kilometres of water.
They feed many of the world's great rivers - the Ganges, the Indus, the Brahmaputra - on which hundreds of millions of people depend.
'Catastrophic rate'
In its 2007 report, the Nobel Prize-winning Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said: "Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.
<!-- S IBOX --> <table align="right" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="231"> <tbody><tr> <td width="5">http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif</td> <td class="sibtbg"> http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/start_quote_rb.gif It is not plausible that Himalayan glaciers are disappearing completely within the next few decades http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/end_quote_rb.gif


Michael Zemp,
World Glacier Monitoring Service

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/inline_dashed_line.gif

<!-- S ILIN --> Himalayan glaciers' 'mixed picture' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8355837.stm)
<!-- E ILIN -->
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <!-- E IBOX --> "Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometres by the year 2035," the report said.
It suggested three quarters of a billion people who depend on glacier melt for water supplies in Asia could be affected.
But Professor Cogley has found a 1996 document by a leading hydrologist, VM Kotlyakov, that mentions 2350 as the year by which there will be massive and precipitate melting of glaciers.
"The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates - its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometres by the year 2350," Mr Kotlyakov's report said.
Mr Cogley says it is astonishing that none of the 10 authors of the 2007 IPCC report could spot the error and "misread 2350 as 2035".
"I do suggest that the glaciological community might consider advising the IPCC about ways to avoid such egregious errors as the 2035 versus 2350 confusion in the future," says Mr Cogley.
He said the error might also have its origins in a 1999 news report on retreating glaciers in the New Scientist magazine.
The article quoted Syed I Hasnain, the then chairman of the International Commission for Snow and Ice's (ICSI) Working group on Himalayan glaciology, as saying that most glaciers in the Himalayan region "will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming".
<!-- S IIMA --> <table align="right" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="226"> <tbody><tr><td> http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46651000/jpg/_46651193_glacier226.jpg Scientists say Himalayan glaciers need more study

</td></tr> </tbody></table> <!-- E IIMA --> When asked how this "error" could have happened, RK Pachauri, the Indian scientist who heads the IPCC, said: "I don't have anything to add on glaciers."
The IPCC relied on three documents to arrive at 2035 as the "outer year" for shrinkage of glaciers.
They are: a 2005 World Wide Fund for Nature report on glaciers; a 1996 Unesco document on hydrology; and a 1999 news report in New Scientist.
Incidentally, none of these documents have been reviewed by peer professionals, which is what the IPCC is mandated to be doing.
Murari Lal, a climate expert who was one of the leading authors of the 2007 IPCC report, denied it had its facts wrong about melting Himalayan glaciers.
But he admitted the report relied on non-peer reviewed - or 'unpublished' - documents when assessing the status of the glaciers.
'Alarmist'
Recently India's Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh released a study on Himalayan glaciers that suggested that they may be not melting as much due to global warming as it is widely feared.
He accused the IPCC of being "alarmist".
<!-- S IIMA --> <table align="right" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="226"> <tbody><tr><td> http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46651000/jpg/_46651274_glacier2226.jpg India says the rate of retreat in many glaciers has decreased in recent years

</td></tr> </tbody></table> <!-- E IIMA --> Mr Pachauri dismissed the study as "voodoo science" and said the IPCC was a "sober body" whose work was verified by governments.
But in a joint statement some the world's leading glaciologists who are also participants to the IPCC have said: "This catalogue of errors in Himalayan glaciology... has caused much confusion that could have been avoided had the norms of scientific publication, including peer review and concentration upon peer-reviewed work, been respected."
Michael Zemp from the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich also said the IPCC statement on Himalayan glaciers had caused "some major confusion in the media".
"Under strict consideration of the IPCC rules, it should actually not have been published as it is not based on a sound scientific reference.
"From a present state of knowledge it is not plausible that Himalayan glaciers are disappearing completely within the next few decades. I do not know of any scientific study that does support a complete vanishing of glaciers in the Himalayas within this century."






Raw Data destroyed or will not be released, not possible to independently verify the science nor the models - critical to the Scientific Method.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece




Climate change data dumped

<!-- END: Module - Main Heading --> <!--CMA user Call Diffrenet Variation Of Image --> <!-- BEGIN: Module - M24 Article Headline with no image (a) --> <!-- getting the section url from article. This has been done so that correct url is generated if we are coming from a section or topic --> <!-- Print Author name associated with the article --> <!-- Print Author name from By Line associated with the article --> Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor

<!-- BEGIN: M19 - Article tools -->

470 Comments (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece#comment-have-your-say)

<script type="text/javascript"> gSiteLife.Recommend("ExternalResource", "6936328","http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece"); </script> Recommend? (591) (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece#none)


<!--
--> <!-- END: M19 - Article tools -->

<!-- END: Module - M24 Article Headline with no image --> <!-- BEGIN: Module - Main Article --> <!-- Check the Article Type and display accordingly--> <!-- Print Author image associated with the Author--> <!-- Print the body of the article--> <style type="text/css"> div#related-article-links p a, div#related-article-links p a:visited { color:#06c; } </style> <!-- Pagination --> SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
<!--#include file="m63-article-related-attachements.html"--> <!-- BEGIN: Module - M63 - Article Related Attachements --> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/js/picture-gallery.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> function slideshowPopUp(url) { pictureGalleryPopupPic(url); return false; } </script> <!-- BEGIN: Comment Teaser Module --> <!-- END: Comment Teaser Module --> <!-- BEGIN: Module - M63 - Article Related Package --> <!-- END: Module - M63 - Article Related Package --> Related Links




The great climate change science scandal (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936289.ece)

<form name="relatedLinksform" action="" method="post"> </form>

EU figurehead says climate change a myth (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5430362.ece)

<form name="relatedLinksform" action="" method="post"> </form>

<!-- BEGIN: POLL --> <!--This block will execute if an article of type Poll is attached--> <!-- END : POLL --> <!-- BEGIN: DEBATE--> <!-- END: DEBATE-->
<!-- END: Module - M63 - Article Related Attachements --> The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.
In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”
The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.
Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.
Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years.
He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.NASA will not release climate change data

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/


Global Warming - explaining what the leaked data emails and computer code show in regard to the scientific fraud
"what hide the decline" means minus the spin.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html




Understanding Climategate's Hidden Decline

By Marc Sheppard (http://www.americanthinker.com/marc_sheppard/)
<script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-4560167926987914"; google_ad_width = 300; google_ad_height = 250; google_ad_format = "300x250_as"; google_ad_type = "text_image"; //2006-11-22: AT - Articles - 300 by 250 google_ad_channel = "0110545599"; google_color_border = "336699"; google_color_bg = "FFFFFF"; google_color_link = "999966"; google_color_text = "000000"; google_color_url = "003399"; //--></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><script src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/expansion_embed.js"></script><script src="http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/test_domain.js"></script><script>google_protectAndRun("ads_core.google_render_ad", google_handleError, google_render_ad);</script><ins style="border: medium none ; margin: 0pt; padding: 0pt; display: inline-table; height: 250px; position: relative; visibility: visible; width: 300px;"><ins style="border: medium none ; margin: 0pt; padding: 0pt; display: block; height: 250px; position: relative; visibility: visible; width: 300px;"><iframe allowtransparency="true" hspace="0" id="google_ads_frame2" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" name="google_ads_frame" src="http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/ads?client=ca-pub-4560167926987914&format=300x250_as&output=html&h=250&w=300&lmt=1260197514&channel=0110545599&ad_type=text_image&color_bg=FFFFFF&color_border=336699&color_link=999966&color_text=000000&color_url=003399&flash=10.0.22&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanthinker.com%2F2009%2F 12%2Funderstanding_climategates_hid.html&dt=1260197769509&correlator=1260197769511&frm=0&ga_vid=565703493.1259892052&ga_sid=1260197703&ga_hid=1458835656&ga_fc=1&u_tz=60&u_his=7&u_java=1&u_h=1050&u_w=1400&u_ah=986&u_aw=1400&u_cd=32&u_nplug=17&u_nmime=60&biw=1400&bih=798&fu=0&ifi=2&dtd=84&xpc=qFxeylOLLj&p=http%3A//www.americanthinker.com" style="left: 0pt; position: absolute; top: 0pt;" vspace="0" scrolling="no" width="300" frameborder="0" height="250"></iframe></ins></ins>
Close followers of the Climategate controversy know that much of the mle surrounds an e-mail in which Climate Research Unit (CRU) chief Phil Jones wrote about using “Mike’s Nature Trick” (MNT) to “hide the decline.” And yet, seventeen days and thousands of almost exclusively on-line op-eds into this scandal, it still seems that very few understand exactly which “decline” was being hidden, what “trick” was used to do so, and why Jones’s words have become the slogan for the greatest scientific fraud in history.

As the mainstream media move from abject denial to dismissive whitewashing, CRU co-conspirators move to Copenhagen for tomorrow’s U.N. climate meeting, intent on changing the world as we know it based primarily on their now-exposed trickery. Add yesterday’s announcement of a U.N. investigation into the matter, which will doubtless be no less corrupt than those being investigated, and public awareness of how and why that trick was performed is now more vital than ever.

So please allow me to explain in what I hope are easily digestible terms.

First and foremost -- contrary to what you’ve likely read elsewhere in the blogosphere or heard from the few policymakers and pundits actually addressing the issue, it was not the temperature decline the planet has been experiencing since 1998 that Jones and friends conspired to hide. Certainly, the simple fact that the e-mail was sent in November of 1999 should allay any such confusion.

In fact, the decline Jones so urgently sought to hide was not one of measured temperatures at all, but rather figures infinitely more important to climate alarmists -- those determined by proxy reconstructions. As this scandal has attracted new readers to the subject, I ask climate-savvy readers to indulge me while I briefly explain climate proxies, as they are an essential ingredient of this contemptible conspiracy.

Truth be told, even reasonably reliable instrumental readings are a relatively modern convenience, limiting CRU’s global measured temperature database to a start date somewhere in the mid-19<sup>th</sup> century. That’s why global temperature charts based on actual readings typically use a base year of 1850, or somewhere thereabout.


And yet, most historical temperature charts, including the one Al Gore preached before in An Inconvenient Truth, go way back to 1000 AD. That’s where proxies come in.

While historical documents (e.g., ship’s logs, diaries, court and church records, tax rolls, and even classic literature) certainly provide a glimpse into past temperature trends, such information is far too limited and generalized to be of any statistical value. So climate scientists have devised means to measure variations in such ubiquitous materials as lake sediments, boreholes, ice cores, and tree rings to evaluate past temperature trends.

They then employ complex computer programs to combine such “proxy” data sampled throughout a region and plot that area’s annual relative changes in temperature hundreds or even thousands of years prior. By then combining the data sets, they believe they can accurately reproduce hemispheric and global temperature trends of the previous millennia.

And while reconstructions -- as past temperature interpretations from proxy data are called -- can differ greatly from one source to another, those generated by the CRU have often been accepted as the de facto temperatures of the past.

This is largely because the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) proclaims them to be.

Warmist Public Enemy Number One: The Medieval Warming Period


It’s important to understand that early analyses, and even many contemporary studies, of these “proxies” clearly demonstrate that three radical temperature shifts occurred within the past millennium. Indeed, the years 900-1300 AD were labeled the Medieval Warming Period (MWP), as global temperatures rose precipitously from the bitter cold of the previous Dark Ages to levels several degrees warmer than today. The Little Ice Age, a sudden period of cooling, then followed and lasted until the year 1850. And then began the modern warming period, which is by no means unique and appears to have ended with the millennium itself.

Originally, even the IPCC accepted that pre-20<sup>th</sup>-century analysis. In fact, the 1990 First Assessment Report used this schematic IPCC 1990 Figure 7c (http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/lambh23.jpg) (courtesy of Climate Audit) to represent last millennium’s dramatic temperature swings.

http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/lambh23.jpg

But this image of a fluid climate system subject to abrupt and natural up-and-downturns made "unprecedented" 20<sup>th</sup>-century warming about as marketable as Florida swampland. And opportunists who depended on the aberrance of post-industrial revolution warming in order to condemn and control mankind’s CO2 emissions soon recognized that perhaps the LIA, and most certainly the MWP, simply had to go.


And as many of these hucksters were closely connected to the IPCC -- both sender and recipient names on those illuminating CRU emails include many of its editors, lead authors, and contributors -- that task was far less daunting than one might imagine.

Proxies, Tricks, and Hockey Sticks


The first step was taken in the 1995 Second Assessment Report, when the above Figure 7c was replaced with a 1993 reconstruction from R.S. Bradley and Phil Jones himself that used 1400 AD as its base -- effectively wiping the MWP off the radar screen.

But it wasn’t until the 2001 Third Assessment Report (TAR) that the MWP simply vanished. This multi-proxy reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperature anomalies appeared in chapter 2, page 134 of the Working Group 1 (WG1) report [PDF (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-02.pdf)].


http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/images/fig2-20.gif
IPCC 2001 WG1 Fig 2.20
Of course, the first thing you’ll notice is that both the MWP and LIA have indeed disappeared. In fact, temperatures appear to trend downward throughout the millennium until a sharp jump upward last century. But if you look closer, you’ll also notice that the “reconstructed” series terminates in 1980. What forms the dramatic blade to the hockey stick shape (yes, this is indeed the famous “Hockey-Stick” graph) is instead the distal segment of the 1902-to-1999 instrumental data series.

Mann has recently claimed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112004093.html?hpid=sec-nation) that the available proxy data ended in 1980, but even his co-conspirators at RealClimate (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/) admit that’s nonsense. The truth is that the proxy data was scrapped because unlike those measured, reconstructed temperatures showed a marked decline after 1980. And as the chart plotted temperature anomalies against what the plotters selected as the “normal” period and temperatures of 1961 to 1990, the reconstruction would have been quite unremarkable otherwise. So at the 1980 mark, the actual post-1980 measurements were attached to the truncated proxy series to create the illusion that they were one.

The figure below, found on the same page of the WG1 report, reveals this trick more clearly. This chart plots the original four reconstructions used: two from Mann et al, one from Jones et al, and one from Briffa et al. Notice how all but the first series continue to trend downward around 1960 while instrumental readings begin to trend upward? And even that series ends abruptly in 1980.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/images/fig2-21.gif
IPCC 2001 WG1 Fig 2.21
So not only did conspirators cherry-pick the one series of the four that approximated measured temperatures the longest, they also terminated that series at the point that it too, began to trend down. They then joined it to the actual 1980-1999 temperatures to “hide the decline” in the final product, as that decline created an inexplicable divergence between the reconstructed and measured temperatures..the existence of which challenges the entire series dating back to 1000 AD.

Remember, all the temperatures prior to 1850 were estimated by computer algorithms, and no actual readings exist to prove or disprove those figures. So a relatively short window of opportunity exists to test the programs against observations. Had 20<sup>th</sup>-century measured temperatures continued to align with those recreated as smoothly after 1960 as they did previously, then the programmers could declare their code and hence their millennial temperatures sound. But the divergence, if allowed to stand, instead reveals serious design flaws in the proxy reconstructions...which suggests that just as the decline was dealt with through trickery, so was the MWP.

And it seems that each time the trick was used, its involvement would be more deeply concealed.

Every multi-volume IPCC Assessment has been accompanied by a relatively brief and highly-politicized Summary for Policymakers (SPM). This synopsis invariably commands the bulk of the media and political attention. Here’s the version of the graph depicted prominently on page 3 of the 2001 TAR SPM [PDF (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/WG1_TAR-FRONT.PDF)], the only version of the report most policymakers and reporters would ever actually see. Notice how they further obscured their chicanery by omitting the series-defining legend and the “1988 instrumental value” declaration:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ed/Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large.jpg


IPCC 2001 SPM Fig 1b
And despite the fact that the only confirmable segment of the series failed that very test, which should have declared the entire series null and void, the chart’s caption informed policymakers that
the rate and duration of warming of the 20th century has been much greater than in any of the previous nine centuries. Similarly, it is likely that the 1990s have been the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year of the millennium.
And it’s this highly fraudulent version that has become the poster child of the equally fraudulent Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) movement.

All this is thanks in large part to the trick that hides the decline.

Trick or Cheat


Now we'll take a closer look at exactly what Jones meant when he wrote that he had “just completed Mike’s Nature Trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”


Why did Jones refer to the ruse as“Mike’s Nature Trick”?
As die-hard Hockey Team opponents and fans alike already know, the original 600-year version of the now infamous “Hockey-Stick” graph was dubbed MBH98 because it first appeared in the Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes paper “Global-Scale Temperature Patterns and Climate Forcing Over the Past Six Centuries” [PDF (http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/PDF/mann1998.pdf)], originally published in the science journal Nature in 1998. And “Mike’s Nature Trick” received its dubious designation among CRU insiders for the very same reason.

As to the rest of the sentence, it seems Jones was working on a cover chart for a forthcoming World Meteorological Organization report [PDF (http://www.wmo.ch/pages/prog/wcp/wcdmp/statemnt/wmo913.pdf)], “WMO Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 1990,”when he wrote the e-mail. As the graph would incorporate one reconstruction of his own plus one each from Michael Mann and Keith Briffa, Jones was informing them that he had used the trick on Mann’s series at the same 1980 cutoff as MBH98, but found it necessary to use 1960 as the cutoff on the Briffa series.


And what I uncovered in the source code (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=1h&oq=%22c&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4IBMA_enUS306US306&q=%22cru%27s+source+code%3a+climategate+uncovered% 22) told why. While Mann used multiple proxy sources, Briffa’s reconstructions were based solely on a property of annual tree ring growth known as maximum latewood density (MXD). And the MXD-only-driven plots began to diverge from actual temperatures as early as 1960. In fact, while many of CRU’s programs are designed to exclude all data after 1960 for later manual splicing with instrumental data, others employ “fudge factors” to force the generated plot to more closely adhere to measured temperatures as far back as 1930.

And as you’ll soon see, Jones’s admitted use of MNT took it to an entirely new level of fraud.

Here’s the original reconstruction, with the three proxy and measured temperature (black) series intact:

http://www.uea.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.138393%21imageManager/4052145227.jpg

Notice how Briffa’s series (green) begins to trend sharply downward around the mid-20<sup>th</sup> century. Jones’s series (red) soon follows, but less sharply, and then it begins to trend higher. Mann’s (blue) appears to flatten out around the same year that Jones’s begins to fall. Meanwhile, all three have broken with the measured rising temperatures of the late 20<sup>th</sup> century.

Now take a look at the chart actually published by the WMO, with all three proxy series having been surreptitiously subjected to MNT:

http://www.uea.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.138392%21imageManager/1009061939.jpg

Since the release of CRU’s FOI2009, alarmists have continued their claim that there’s nothing deceptive about the “trick” and that it has been openly discussed in scientific journals like Nature since 1998.


But I defy anyone to compare the above chart -- the one to which Jones wrote he had applied MNT -- to the unadulterated version above it and tell me there’s been no deception committed. At least with MBH98, a sharp eye might recognize the ruse. Here, there is no indication given whatsoever that the graph represents an amalgam of proxy and measured temperatures. This, my friends, is fraud.

And I hope that those investigating the fraud will carefully consider this explanation (http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate) of the WMO cheating given last week by Jones:

One of the three temperature reconstructions was based entirely on a particular set of tree-ring data that shows a strong correlation with temperature from the 19th century through to the mid-20<sup>th</sup> century, but does not show a realistic trend of temperature after 1960. This is well known and is called the ‘decline’ or ‘divergence’. The use of the term ‘hiding the decline’ was in an email written in haste. CRU has not sought to hide the decline. Indeed, CRU has published a number of articles that both illustrate, and discuss the implications of, this recent tree-ring decline, including the article that is listed in the legend of the WMO Statement figure. It is because of this trend in these tree-ring data that we know does not represent temperature change that I only show this series up to 1960 in the WMO Statement. [My emphasis.]

And they’ll immediately recognize the dishonest denial they’re dealing with when they read the WMO Statement figure from the inside cover Jones referred to:

Northern Hemisphere temperatures were reconstructed for the past 1000 years (up to 1999) using palaeoclimatic records (tree rings, corals, ice cores, lake sediments, etc.), along with historical and long instrumental records. The data are shown as 50-year smoothed differences from teh 1961-1990 normal. Uncertainties are greater in the early part of the millennium (see page 4 for further information). For more details, readers are referred to the PAGES newsletter (Vol. 7, No. 1: March 1999, also available at http://www.pages.unibe.ch) and the National Geophysical Data Center (http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov).
Even if MNT had been explained as Jones claimed -- which it hadn’t -- just how was the observer expected to differentiate the reconstructed from the actual data? And good luck finding that newsletter.

Spin it any way you want -- Mike’s Nature Trick is Phil’s WMO cheat.

More Tricks of the Charade


While suddenly the most famous, Mike’s is not the only trick in CRU’s bag.

Many of the programs I reviewed contained routines to exclude proxy data that demonstrated poor correlations with local temperature, which of course explains why CRU’s 19<sup>th</sup>- through mid-20<sup>th</sup>-century proxy temperatures appeared to be observationally accurate. Others “estimated” values for missing data.

And then there’s the Yamal matter -- also a popular subject of the CRU e-mails.

In an October 5th e-mail (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1037&filename=1254751382.txt) to climatologist Tom Wigley, Jones took issue with a piece (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_climate_reports_they_lie.html) I had written that day exposing the lies in CRU-based U.N. climate reports, which included a section on Keith Briffa’s mistreatment of Polar Ural data in order to exaggerate 20<sup>th</sup>-century warming. That e-mail prompted the reply (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1039&filename=1254756944.txt) from Wigley -- now familiar to AT readers -- in which he admitted it was “distressing to read that American Stinker (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_evidence_of_climate_fraud.html) item” -- before offering to help Briffa, who “does seem to have got himself into a mess,” write an “explanation” for his deceitful cherry-picking of Yamal peninsula data.

Indeed, Keith’s Yamal Trick also “fudged” proxy reconstructions, not by overwriting them with instrumental data la Mike, but rather by underhandedly stacking the actual data set with trees handpicked to assure his predetermined outcome. Yet both methods intentionally corrupted reconstruction results for the same devious purpose -- to skew late-20<sup>th</sup>-century temperatures higher in order to artificially create the dreaded hockey-stick effect.

Now, you might be wondering why all this fuss is being made over late-20<sup>th</sup>-century temperatures when even we realists accept that they did rise until 1998. Hopefully, you now understand why the divergence between proxy and measured temperatures betrays a potential serious flaw in the process by which temperatures are reconstructed from tree-ring density. And any reconstruction demonstrating such a flaw-revealing divergence should be dismissed outright, not presented as policy fodder.

But there’s another issue at stake here.

Anthony Watts has surveyed over 75% of the 1,200-plus U.S. weather stations from which national temperatures are accumulated. Most of those were found to be inaccurate by more than 2C, largely due to being located within ten meters of an artificial heating source. In fact, less than 10% met strict placement guidelines set forth by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Not to worry -- NOAA claims it has methods to “adjust” for such bias, including the use of “smoothing” adjustments to “homogenize” station data to that of surrounding stations.


Unpublished computer programs artificially adjusting the data -- what could possibly go wrong with that?

Would you be shocked to learn that at ICCC 3 (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/iccc_three_brings_climate_real.html), Watts told us he had calculated such adjustments to raw temperature data between 1940 and 1999 to be 0.5F to the positive? That accounts for almost one half of the 1.2F warming over the last century.

And that’s here in America. Try to imagine what kind of shenanigans might be going on elsewhere in the world.


Consequently, even the “instrumental” temperatures the CRU crooks were using as a basis for fudging were likely themselves fudged. So they were pumping the incline while hiding the decline.

Hold the Fudge, and the MWP Won’t Budge


In a June 2003 e-mail (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=319&filename=1054736277.txt) to Jones and company, Mann discussed the notion of expanding CRU charts to two millennia in an effort to “try to "contain" the putative "MWP."”No deception in that, I suppose. Of course, an honest 2000-year reconstruction, such as this one from CO2Science.org (http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/images/l1_mobergnh2.gif), adapted from a 2005 Moberg, et al temperature history (ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/moberg2005/nhtemp-moberg2005.txt) derived from tree-rings and lake and ocean sediments, would actually emphasize rather than “contain” the MWP:

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/images/l1_mobergnh2.gif


Any questions why Mann and friends work so diligently to “contain” (hide) the MWP?

As you can see, the post-LIA warming that began around 1850 is neither unprecedented nor spectacular. And it's certainly not worth rewiring the economic circuitry of the planet over.

And the CRU/IPCC reconstructions have been counterfeited for the express purpose of hiding that very fact.

After all, the stakes are enormous: perhaps trillions of dollars and unquestionably every American’s personal liberties. Tomorrow, over 20,000 delegates from 193 nations will gather in Copenhagen to craft an agreement which would not only force American power consumption to levels equal to those of about 1910, but would also have us pay reparations for an imaginary “climate debt” we’ve accumulated by building the world’s greatest economy of all time. That debt is based on the amount of CO2 our financial growth has purportedly pumped into the atmosphere, which, according to the conclusions of the IPCC and based largely upon reports from the CRU, has selfishly imperiled the planet by inducing climate change.

Of course, asking Americans to pay reparations based on the claim they’ve done harm to other nations by spoiling the climate is like asking me to pay damages to my neighbor based on his claim that he can’t sell his house because my great-grandmother’s ghost is haunting it.

As many have known and as Climategate has proven, both situations are equally preposterous.

But at least belief in ghosts is only marginally inspired by fraud.Cooler Heads with Dr Richard Lindzen on Cap and Trade pt 1 of 6 - AGW corruption in the academic field

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmGiiNQ0yHQ&feature=related

<object width="560" height="340">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BmGiiNQ0yHQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></object>


Cap and trade video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA6FSy6EKrM&feature=player_embedded

<object width="560" height="340">
<embed wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=7908590&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&fullscreen=1" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="never" width="480" height="415"> The Story of Cap & Trade (http://itulip.com/watch/2610589-the-story-of-cap-and-trade-pourquoi-on-ne-peut-rsoudre-un-problme-avec-la-logique-qui-la-cr) - Watch more Videos (http://vodpod.com) at Vodpod.

<object width="560" height="340">

http://www.openletter-globalwarming.info/Site/Letter_to_Senate.html

open letter petition to the senate was signed by 160 distinguished members and fellows of the Society, including one Nobelist and 12 members of the National Academies.




http://www.openletter-globalwarming.info/Site/Letter_to_Senate_files/shapeimage_1.jpg




A GAGGLE IS NOT A CONSENSUS



You have recently received a letter from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), purporting to convey a “consensus” of the scientific community that immediate and drastic action is needed to avert a climatic catastrophe.

We do not seek to make the scientific arguments here (we did that in an earlier letter, sent a couple of months ago), but simply to note that the claim of consensus is fake, designed to stampede you into actions that will cripple our economy, and which you will regret for many years. There is no consensus, and even if there were, consensus is not the test of scientific validity. Theories that disagree with the facts are wrong, consensus or no.

We know of no evidence that any of the “leaders” of the scientific community who signed the letter to you ever asked their memberships for their opinions, before claiming to represent them on this important matter.

We also note that the American Physical Society (APS, and we are physicists) did not sign the letter, though the scientific issues at stake are fundamentally matters of applied physics. You can do physics without climatology, but you can’t do climatology without physics.

The APS is at this moment reviewing its stance on so-called global warming, having received a petition from its membership to do so. That petition was signed by 160 distinguished members and fellows of the Society, including one Nobelist and 12 members of the National Academies. Indeed a score of the signers are Members and Fellows of the AAAS, none of whom were consulted before the AAAS letter to you.

Professor Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara

Professor Fred Singer, University of Virginia

Professor Will Happer, Princeton University

Professor Larry Gould, University of Hartford

Dr. Roger Cohen, retired Manager, Strategic Planning, ExxonMobil



List of 160 signers of the APS petition available at http://tinyurl.com/lg266uClimatologist Eduardo Zorita Scientist at the Institute for Coastal Research alleges blackmail, collusion and corruption in open letter

Department of Paleoclimate ,
Coastal Research
GKSS Research Center in Geesthacht, Germany






Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process
Eduardo Zorita, November 2009

Short answer: because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.
A longer answer: My voice is not very important. I belong to the climate-research infantry, publishing a few papers per year, reviewing a few manuscript per year and participating in a few research projects. I do not form part of important committees, nor I pursue a public awareness of my activities. My very minor task in the public arena was to participate as a contributing author in the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.
By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication. My area of research happens to be the climate of the past millennia, where I think I am appreciated by other climate-research ’soldiers’. And it happens that some of my mail exchange with Keith Briffa and Timothy Osborn can be found in the CRU-files made public recently on the internet.
To the question of legality or ethicalness of reading those files I will write a couple of words later.
I may confirm what has been written in other places: research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion, as any reader can interpret from the CRU-files. They depict a realistic, I would say even harmless, picture of what the real research in the area of the climate of the past millennium has been in the last years. The scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas.
These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. On the contrary, it is a question which we have to be very well aware of. But I am also aware that in this thick atmosphere -and I am not speaking of greenhouse gases now- editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations,even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the ‘politically correct picture’. Some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture. I had the ‘pleasure’ to experience all this in my area of research.
I thank explicitely Keith Briffa and Tim Osborn for their work in the formulation of one Chapter of the IPCC report. As it destills from these emails, they withstood the evident pressure of other IPCC authors, not experts in this area of research, to convey a distorted picture of our knowledge of the hockey-stick graph.
Is legal or ethical to read the CRU files? I am not a lawyer. It seems that if the files had been hacked this would constitute an illegal act. If they have been leaked it could be a whistle blower action protected by law. I think it is not unethical to read them. Once published, I feel myself entitled to read how some researchers tried to influence reviewers to scupper the publication of our work on the ‘hockey stick graph’ or to read how some IPCC authors tried to exclude this work from the IPCC Report on very dubious reasons. Also, these mails do not contain any personal information at all. They are an account of many dull daily activities of typical climatologists, together with a realistic account of very troubling professional behaviorhttp://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/27/357/


Global warming / environmentalism as Religion - court ruling in UK

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/05/nicholson-climate-change-belief



"
Being green is no religion

A court ruling that environmentalism is akin to religious belief is bad news for science, and for efforts to tackle climate change



Comments (161) (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/05/nicholson-climate-change-belief#start-of-comments)
Buzz up! (http://uk.buzz.yahoo.com/buzz?publisherurn=the_guardian665&targetUrl=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/05/nicholson-climate-change-belief&summary=%3Cstrong%3EWendy+M+Grossman%3A+%3C%2Fstro ng%3EA+court+ruling+that+environmentalism+is+akin+ to+religious+belief+is+bad+news+for+science%2C+and +for+efforts+to+tackle+climate+change&headline=Being%20green%20is%20no%20religion%20%7C% 20Wendy%20M%20Grossman%20%7CComment%20is%20free%20 %7Cguardian.co.uk)
Digg it (http://digg.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fcomme ntisfree%2Fbelief%2F2009%2Fnov%2F05%2Fnicholson-climate-change-belief&title=Being+green+is+no+religion+%7C+Wendy+M+Gross man)




http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/11/5/1257416237360/wendy.jpg (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/wendy-m-grossman)


Wendy M Grossman (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/wendy-m-grossman)
guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/), Thursday 5 November 2009 12.00 GMT
Article history (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/05/nicholson-climate-change-belief#history-byline)



Judging from what I read many men who pay for sex want a straightforward transaction where their money buys them the prostitute's body and acting talent, but stops short of acquiring her heart and passion. Some jobs are like that. The head of a large organisation's sustainability programme apparently can be one such. While we expect our do-gooders to be earnest and sincere, for many large organisations the biggest driver pushing them towards sustainability is cost, not conviction. Can someone be too devoutly green to be head of sustainability for a large company?
We are not in a position to judge the employment issues – job performance and company behaviour – in the case of Tim Nicholson (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/03/tim-nicholson-climate-change-belief), the former head of sustainability for the property company Grainger PLC. Nicholson was made redundant in 2008 and this week was given leave to appeal to an employment tribunal on the basis of the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20031660.htm). The company says that its decision was all about "operational needs", and of course we all know what the recession has done to the building industry.
Nicholson contends, however, that he was fired because he believes too deeply in environmentalism.
"It's a philosophical belief based on my moral and ethical values and underpinned by scientific evidence," Nicholson says in the video clip posted to the BBC site (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/8339652.stm), going on to describe the evidence for climate change as "overwhelming" and himself as being morally impelled to "do something about it". Nicholson has made many personal changes such as giving up flying, eating less meat, and renovating his home, and now works for a green medical charity in Oxford.
Whatever happens in Nicholson's case, the wider concern is one of turning science into religion. Grainger tried in court to characterise his beliefs as based on fact and science, but the court ruled that his beliefs were so extreme as to be "more than opinion".
Nicholson welcomed this ruling. But he shouldn't have. As soon as you characterise the belief that climate change is the most important issue facing the human race as religious you lose all your weight in the argument over what to do about it. All beliefs are created equal. If the issue of climate change is one of competing religious beliefs, then those claiming impending doom if we don't reduce carbon emissions and stop burning fossil fuels can be safely ignored.
It is only when it is viewed as a matter of science and factual evidence that changing our lifestyles becomes a moral imperative. Nicholson's actions may be extreme, but only judged by today's lens. A decade or two hence, his way of life may be – likely will have to be – average. He should prefer to be seen as a forward thinker rather than a religious fanatic.
Making issues that should be settled on the scientific evidence into philosophical discussions is, of course, nothing new. TV shows have for decades had "debates" over everything from astrology to faith healing. Just recently, The Spectator tried to field one over whether HIV is really the cause of Aids (http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5461313/questioning-the-aids-consensus.thtml), something the scientific consensus settled 20 years ago. All of these should be questions of fact and evidence, not belief or opinion. Experts debating the reality of climate change made sense when scientific consensus was lacking. It does not make sense now, when expert consensus is that the question is no longer whether we need to change but whether we can change enough fast enough to avoid mass extinction.
Religions have beliefs. Science is not a belief system but the best process we have for establishing the truth, piece by independently replicated piece. Nicholson should be appalled by the ruling he has won.Draconian Laws without proper debate and against best advice of Barristers - Ireland detailed but happening in many

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/ahern-defends-controversial-new-criminal-justice-bill-1804586.html



Ahern defends controversial new Criminal Justice Bill


1000s of Holiday Cottages Across Ireland At Unbeatable Prices!
www.ImagineIreland.com (http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/aclk?sa=l&ai=BECXKDRAdS6PZE5SR_Aa_4fzfBZe5lHeLyYT9C8CNtwGg0R kQBBgEIODDqQgoBDgAULnk66j-_____wFguwagAfHbq_4DsgESd3d3LmluZGVwZW5kZW50LmllyA EB2gF4aHR0cDovL3d3dy5pbmRlcGVuZGVudC5pZS9icmVha2lu Zy1uZXdzL25hdGlvbmFsLW5ld3MvYWhlcm4tZGVmZW5kcy1jb2 50cm92ZXJzaWFsLW5ldy1jcmltaW5hbC1qdXN0aWNlLWJpbGwt MTgwNDU4Ni5odG1sgAIBqQJoC6jxO5-7PqgDAegDiQboA5gD6AOPBvUDAAAARA&num=4&sig=AGiWqtyIXmYtzcpO4Bzs5VW39mFSmM19bQ&client=ca-pub-9024837700129787&adurl=http://www.imagineireland.com/%3Frefid%3D128)





Friday July 03 2009

<!-- // authors -->
Justice Minister Dermot Ahern has defended controversial new legislation on gangland crime that he is forcing through the Dail without the normal debate.
The Criminal Justice Bill, which gives Gardai and the courts significantly increased powers to tackle organised crime, is expected to be passed into law by next week.
Civil liberties groups have criticised some aspects of the legislation, particularly the use of the non-jury Special Criminal Court to try gangland suspects.
Critics say the move is an over-reaction as there is little evidence of jury tampering in Ireland.
However, speaking in the Dail this morning, Mr Ahern said the Garda Commissioner believes that "the threat is such that the use of the Special Criminal court is justified".
He said court officials in Limerick had cited specific instances where gang members had sat in the front row of the courts to intimidate juries.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0429/1224245599892.html

(Courts recognize Global warming as religion in UK were the courts do same in Ireland OR AT EU LEVEL would to deny or doubt AGW be deemed BLASPHEMOUS and offending material seized? this law is already in place in Ireland)




Crime of blasphemous libel proposed for Defamation Bill

In this section (http://www.irishtimes.com/)



Economy to shrink by 9.2% this year, says ESRI (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0429/1224245599909.html)
Tests on four Irish negative as swine flu cases increase (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0429/1224245599897.html)



CAROL COULTER, Legal Affairs EditorA NEW crime of blasphemous libel is to be proposed by the Minister for Justice in an amendment to the Defamation Bill, which will be discussed by the Oireachtas committee on justice today.
At the moment there is no crime of blasphemy on the statute books, though it is prohibited by the Constitution.
Article 40 of the Constitution, guaranteeing freedom of speech, qualifies it by stating: “The State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.
“The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent material is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.”
Last year the Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, under the chairmanship of Fianna Fil TD Sen Ardagh, recommended amending this Article to remove all references to sedition and blasphemy, and redrafting the Article along the lines of article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which deals with freedom of expression.
The prohibition on blasphemy dates back to English law aimed at protecting the established church, the Church of England, from attack. It has been used relatively recently to prosecute satirical publications in the UK.
In the only Irish case taken under this article, Corway -v- Independent Newspapers, in 1999, the Supreme Court concluded that it was impossible to say “of what the offence of blasphemy consists”.
It also stated that a special protection for Christianity was incompatible with the religious equality provisions of Article 44.
Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern proposes to insert a new section into the Defamation Bill, stating: “A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €100,000.”
“Blasphemous matter” is defined as matter “that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion; and he or she intends, by the publication of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.”
Where a person is convicted of an offence under this section, the court may issue a warrant authorising the Garda Sochna to enter, if necessary using reasonable force, a premises where the member of the force has reasonable grounds for believing there are copies of the blasphemous statements in order to seize them.
Labour spokesman on justice Pat Rabbitte is proposing an amendment to this section which would reduce the maximum fine to €1,000 and exclude from the definition of blasphemy any matter that had any literary, artistic, social or academic merit.http://www.independent.ie/national-news/lawyers-rally-the-troops-to-fight-mcdowells-antigangland-bill-42415.html



Lawyers rally the troops to fight McDowell's anti-gangland bill



By Dearbhail McDonald

Monday April 09 2007

<!-- // authors --> THE Criminal Bar Association (http://www.independent.ie/topics/Criminal+Bar+Association) (CBA), the representative body of Ireland (http://www.independent.ie/topics/Ireland)'s specialist criminal-defence lawyers, has been revived to fight Michael McDowell (http://www.independent.ie/topics/Michael+McDowell)'s controversial Criminal Justice Bill.The CBA, which has been in hibernation for several years, has been brought back to life by lawyers to protest at their former colleague's anti-gangland package which is being rushed through the Dail.
Mr McDowell's bill, widely opposed by judges and lawyers, will introduce changes to Ireland's bail laws. The constitutionally enshrined right to silence will be further restricted and judges' discretion on mandatory sentencing will be clawed back.
Last year, the failure to apply so-called mandatory sentences provoked a row between the Government and the judiciary.
The justice minister, who is a senior counsel and former attorney general, accused judges of being too soft on crime.
The revolt at the Law Library, where members include some of the country's top defenders such as senior counsels Michael O'Higgins (http://www.independent.ie/topics/Michael+O%27Higgins) and Brendan Grehan (http://www.independent.ie/topics/Brendan+Grehan), will see lawyers attend a special meeting to discuss their opposition to the bill.
It takes place on April 16, the first day of the new legal term.
Last month Supreme Court judge Nicholas Kearns (http://www.independent.ie/topics/Nicholas+Kearns) chaired a meeting in the Law Library at which the bill was discussed. Over 140 barristers signed a petition criticising it.
The legal row escalated earlier this month when the Tanaiste attacked his former colleagues in the legal profession over their criticism of measures in his new measures to crack down on crime.
During the AGM of the Association of Garda Sergeants (http://www.independent.ie/topics/Association+of+Garda+Sergeants) in Ireland, Mr McDowell attacked what he called the half-thought-out, conservative and knee-jerk reaction to the measures contained in the Criminal Justice Bill and called on his critics, who included senior defence barristers and solicitors, to tell the full truth to the public.
The Irish Human Rights Commission (http://www.independent.ie/topics/Irish+Human+Rights+Commission) and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (http://www.independent.ie/topics/Irish+Council+for+Civil+Liberties) have also expressed concern about the new package, claiming that some provisions could lead to serious miscarriages of justice.
Britain (http://www.independent.ie/topics/United+Kingdom) has introduced new laws following a recent summit on gun crime. Five south Londoners, including three teenagers, have died in shootings this year. This put pressure on the British government to act.
Last Friday, new anti-gangland laws came into force that will give British police forces additional powers to tackle gun and knife-related violence.The Money Situation

Introduction videos (easy to follow)


Money as Debt - brief and easy to follow overview of the money system

http://vimeo.com/6822294

<object width="400" height="300">


<embed src="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=6822294&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&fullscreen=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="400" height="300"></object>Money As Debt II - Promises Unleashed (http://vimeo.com/6822294) from Vega Angkor (http://vimeo.com/user910569) on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com).



Central banking scam - material on Fed ) ECB is very similar

Griffiths - Creature from Jeckel Island

<embed id="VideoPlayback" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=6507136891691870450&hl=en&fs=true" style="width: 400px; height: 326px;" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" type="application/x-shockwave-flash">

Senator Jim demint questions Bernanke

<object width="425" height="344">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BwBprKRlDEw&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>



Who got the money - Senator Grayson question Bernanke Congressional testimony

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16201



</object></object>
Congressman Watt tried to de-rail the bill to audit the Federal Reserve (H.R. 1207) with a fake alternate bill. See this (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/17/audit-the-fed-effort-unde_n_361389.html?view=print), this (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/11/unions-and-consumer-groups-support-bill.html), this (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/18/economists-opposing-fed-a_n_362287.html?view=print) and this (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/11/6-members-of-congress-cals-for-complete.html).<o></o>

Fortunately, the House Financial Services Committee approved (http://news.firedoglake.com/2009/11/19/paul-grayson-audit-the-fed-bill-passes-financial-services-committee/) H.R. 1207 by 43-26, and rejected Watt's bill.<o></o>

In addition, Congressmen Grayson and Paul's bill (http://grayson.house.gov/Amdt_FSIA_Grayson_001.pdf) requiring written concurrence by the Treasury Secretary prior to the Federal Reserve engaging in a foreign currency swap passed the House Financial Services Committee by a voice vote today.<o></o>

If you haven't already seen it, watch Congressman Grayson grill Bernanke about foreign swaps:<object width="560" height="340"><object width="560" height="340">
<object width="425" height="344">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/n0NYBTkE1yQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>



</object></object>If you don't know what foreign currency swaps are, or why the Fed has been running amok with them, watch Congressman Grayson discuss the amendment:<object width="560" height="340"><object width="560" height="340">
<object width="425" height="344">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tfPAnAllAFE&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>



Support Academic Material

Professor Steve Keen Predicts economic crisis in 2005 - the debt problem

http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/12/01/debtwatch-no-41-december-2009-4-years-of-calling-the-gfc/


Professor Steve Keen - Credit creation is not endogenous but exogenous .i.e Money is Debt created by private institutions

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/02/steve-keen-roving-cavaliers-of-credit.html


Professor Greg Pytel - how the financial system was turned into a giant ponzi scheme

This article was accepted as evidence and published by the British Parliament, House of Commons, Treasury Committee.

http://gregpytel.blogspot.com/2009/04/largest-heist-in-history.html


Greg Pytel the racket continues

http://gregpytel.blogspot.com/2009/11/new-old-model-of-largest-heist-in.html


Dr.Hudson economist - economic adviser to Latvian and Icelandic government - the fire economy the parasite on humanity - Dress rehersal for Debt Peonage

http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2009/08/28/michael-hudson-dress-rehearsal-for-debt-peonage/

Money Mechanics from the federal reserve confirming much of the information in the money as debt video.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Modern_Money_Mechanics.pdf

Swine Flu

TERESA FORCADES, doctor in Public Health, reflects on the history, and gives scientific data, of A type flu and lists all the irregularities related to this subject.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0JqQyl09zQ

Supporting Material

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009/02/27/8560781.html


WHO Defends Flu Response Amid Exaggeration Claims (Update2)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601202&sid=ajjdNgixSVIw&refer=health_care

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/h1n1-swine-flu/who-pandemic-definition-too-broad-doctor-contends/article1348100/

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aTo3LbhcA75I







Weimar Germany Hyperinflation - Mises economic institute


http://mises.org/books/hyperinflation.pdf



Environmentalism

http://www.naturenorth.com/YOTF/Overpopulation.html


http://itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11202</object></object>

hayekvindicated
12-07-09, 10:02 AM
What I find so curious is the UK MSM's militancy about carbon trading: it seems that the UK is so desperate to inflate another useless market for the City's banks that they dun anyone whenever they can! The alternative is frightening: having a real economy!

You've nailed it although I believe the "malaise" goes far beyond that. In the last 12 years under Nu labour, all kinds of "politically correct" causes have achieved a halo of morality that we didn't think possible before - and there has never been a government more corrupt and filled with such lies and hypocrisy. The media has followed suit (although there are areas of resistance in the "right wing" press).

What you say about the British economy is 100 percent true. I don't want to say this at the risk of offending many sensible British commentators on this site but my simple observation during the last few years in this country is that the level of competence of the average Brit is so poor that it is virtually impossible to have a real economy.

It is a country of extremes. At the top end, Ive met some astonishingly well educated and intelligent people (who usually went to private schools or state schools in well to do neighbourhoods and then went to the top universities). It certainly suits this class of people to have a FIRE economy because frankly it is impossible to have anything else given the levels of competence of the rest of the population. And a big chunk of the rest of the population is virtually unemployable. To have a decent mnaufacturing economy, you need a fairly high level of competence in the population (as a whole) - which is why countries like Japan, South Korea, Germany etc do very well in manufacturing, because their average level of training and education is far far superior.

The quality of goods produced here is usually so shoddy that at times Ive been amazed myself. Back in the Nehru socialist era, Indians had jokes about "made in India" goods. I think it is fair to say that "made in India" now compares more than favourably with "made in the UK".

c1ue
12-07-09, 10:39 AM
We have a whole new Ranter and Raver forum for this kind of luddite swill, called "Climate Change."


I just noticed this.

This statement is extremely interesting: conflating those who are skeptical of the role man-made CO2 has in global warming and/or those who distrust the IPCC projections of impending global catastrophe with Luddites - the anti-technology creed of the early Industrial Age.

It seems to me that AGW-CO2-Catastrophists are the actual ones espousing the Luddite creed here.

The original Luddites - weaving artisans being put out of work by mechanized looms - were protesting their livelihoods being destroyed by automation.

The neo-Luddites in contrast are summarized by:


"The industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in 'advanced' countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilled, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to psychological suffering in the Third World (to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world."


Substitute 'CO2' for 'The industrial Revolution' and you can see where modern AGW alarmism gets its roots.

The sexy lie told by the AGW alarmist movement is that the world can be transitioned from a fossil fuel energy economy into a pre- or post- fossil fuel existence without anything but a little financial pain.

Once again, if it is necessary then so be it.

But the evidence so far is very circumstantial.

The main actors providing this evidence are clearly biased.

The need to do so is not at all clearly balanced against the asserted potential damage.

llanlad2
12-07-09, 05:47 PM
What you say about the British economy is 100 percent true. I don't want to say this at the risk of offending many sensible British commentators on this site but my simple observation during the last few years in this country is that the level of competence of the average Brit is so poor that it is virtually impossible to have a real economy.

It certainly suits this class of people to have a FIRE economy because frankly it is impossible to have anything else given the levels of competence of the rest of the population. And a big chunk of the rest of the population is virtually unemployable. To have a decent mnaufacturing economy, you need a fairly high level of competence in the population (as a whole) - which is why countries like Japan, South Korea, Germany etc do very well in manufacturing, because their average level of training and education is far far superior.
Well you've certainly offended me.
While I totally agree on your point regarding the hypocrisy and dishonesty of the present government as well as it's ability to waste money I disagree with you regarding the competence of the average Brit.
Brits are very capable given the opportunity and the right management. Unfortunately all the brightest minds/potential managers in the country choose to go where the money is. ie THE CITY. This is one of the problems not the intelligence or even motivation of the average person. An example of what good management and leadership can do with the "incompetent, unemployable workforce" is given below.

From wikipedia.

Nissan Motor Manufacturing (UK) Ltd, or NMUK is a carmanufacturing plant in Sunderland, Tyne and Wear, United Kingdom. It is owned and operated by the European division of Japanese car manufacturer Nissan. It is the largest car plant in the United Kingdom, and the most productive in Europe. It has been active since 1986.

hayekvindicated
12-07-09, 06:32 PM
Well you've certainly offended me.
While I totally agree on your point regarding the hypocrisy and dishonesty of the present government as well as it's ability to waste money I disagree with you regarding the competence of the average Brit.
Brits are very capable given the opportunity and the right management. Unfortunately all the brightest minds/potential managers in the country choose to go where the money is. ie THE CITY. This is one of the problems not the intelligence or even motivation of the average person. An example of what good management and leadership can do with the "incompetent, unemployable workforce" is given below.

From wikipedia.

One swallow doesn't make a summer.

don
12-18-09, 11:23 AM
A James Corbett Moment

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/12/17/business/17water_CA0_span/articleLarge.jpg

This Los Angeles reservoir contained chemicals that sunlight converted to compounds associated with cancer. The city used plastic balls to block the sun, but nearby homeowners asked why, if the water didn't violate the law.

The real-world environmental questions step on media and government controlling interests. Better to go to any length, regardless of how absurd, to avoid answering those questions....

gordonbrown
12-18-09, 02:38 PM
One swallow doesn't make a summer.

http://order-order.com/2009/12/17/brown-bouncing-cheques-for-decades/

It started in Scotland