Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 27

Thread: Climategate-Copenhagen-Goldman carbon trade scam

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,387

    Default Climategate-Copenhagen-Goldman carbon trade scam

    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)

    With the Climategate scandal 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.

    Already, the Indian government has signalled it is not ready for a firm commitment.

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






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






    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 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 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.)
    Last edited by Supercilious; 12-02-09 at 02:07 AM.

  2. #2
    doom&gloom's Avatar
    doom&gloom is offline iTulip Resident Farmer & Select Premium Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Great NW where the rain falls mainly on my brain
    Posts
    2,532

    Default Re: Climategate-Copenhagen-Goldman carbon trade scam

    Merry Xmas to you too dude!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,387

    Default Re: Climategate-Copenhagen-Goldman carbon trade scam

    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



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


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    133

    Default Re: Climategate-Copenhagen-Goldman carbon trade scam

    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?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    10,290

    Default Re: Climategate-Copenhagen-Goldman carbon trade scam

    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/internatio...n-treaty-legal

    Yes, it is that type of treaty...

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    445

    Default Re: Climategate-Copenhagen-Goldman carbon trade scam

    Those interested in the climate debate (who haven't already made up their minds) might find the site 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.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    A Farm in Tennessee
    Posts
    1,642

    Default Re: Climategate-Copenhagen-Goldman carbon trade scam

    c1ue,

    What do you think of this . . . 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.
    raja
    Boycott Big Banks Vote Out Incumbents

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    10,290

    Default Re: Climategate-Copenhagen-Goldman carbon trade scam

    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]

    • In a November 23 editorial, 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, The Morning Call of Allentown, Pennsylvania, reported that Penn State scientist Michael Mann -- whose "trick" was referenced in Jones' email -- "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 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, which is comprised of several working climate scientists, including Mann, similarly stated:
    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) 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 in a November 20 article that Bob Ward, 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 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]

    • In a November 24 Human Events post, 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 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, 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 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 (.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 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/emai...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, 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:
    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, 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 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 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]

    • 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 [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]

    • 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]
    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: "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: "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 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 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 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]

    • 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]
    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:
    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 on November 20 that Gavin Schmidt, 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 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, "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 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 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.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,770

    Default Re: Climategate-Copenhagen-Goldman carbon trade scam

    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.
    Last edited by Starving Steve; 12-03-09 at 05:58 PM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    10,290

    Default Re: Climategate-Copenhagen-Goldman carbon trade scam

    Quote Originally Posted by Starving Steve
    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.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    A Farm in Tennessee
    Posts
    1,642

    Default Re: Climategate-Copenhagen-Goldman carbon trade scam

    Quote Originally Posted by c1ue View Post
    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 . . . .
    raja
    Boycott Big Banks Vote Out Incumbents

  12. #12
    Chris's Avatar
    Chris is offline Contributing iTuliper, iTulip Select Premium Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    988

    Default Re: Climategate-Copenhagen-Goldman carbon trade scam

    there are no excuses for the contents of those emails. None.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,408

    Default Re: Climategate-Copenhagen-Goldman carbon trade scam

    Quote Originally Posted by quigleydoor View Post
    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.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,031

    Default Re: Climategate-Copenhagen-Goldman carbon trade scam

    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.

  15. #15
    GRG55's Avatar
    GRG55 is online now iTulip High Commissioner, Select Premium Member, Canada and Persian Gulf
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,584

    Default Re: Climategate-Copenhagen-Goldman carbon trade scam

    Quote Originally Posted by WDCRob View Post
    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...

    Quote Originally Posted by WDCRob View Post
    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...

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,750

    Default Re: Climategate-Copenhagen-Goldman carbon trade scam

    Quote Originally Posted by GRG55 View Post
    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!

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Cold and wet England
    Posts
    625

    Default Re: Climategate-Copenhagen-Goldman carbon trade scam

    Quote Originally Posted by phirang View Post
    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".

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    10,290

    Default Re: Climategate-Copenhagen-Goldman carbon trade scam

    Quote Originally Posted by WDC Rob
    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:

    Quote Originally Posted by Theodore Kaczynski
    "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.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    635

    Default Re: Climategate-Copenhagen-Goldman carbon trade scam

    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.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Cold and wet England
    Posts
    625

    Default Re: Climategate-Copenhagen-Goldman carbon trade scam

    Quote Originally Posted by llanlad2 View Post
    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.

Similar Threads

  1. Copenhagen Diagnosis
    By santafe2 in forum Climate Change
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 12-25-09, 12:36 PM
  2. Replies: 34
    Last Post: 12-06-09, 10:38 PM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-14-09, 01:47 AM
  4. cap and trade versus a carbon tax
    By jk in forum News
    Replies: 91
    Last Post: 07-09-09, 02:25 AM
  5. The carbon tax credit scam
    By Supercilious in forum Video
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-20-09, 11:53 AM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Opinions expressed herein are those of the posters, not those of iTulip, Inc., its owners, or management. All material posted on this board becomes the intellectual property of the poster and iTulip, Inc., and may not be reposted in full on another website without the express written permission of iTulip, Inc. By exception, the original registered iTulip member who authored a post may repost his or her own material on other sites. Permission is hereby granted to repost brief excerpts of material from this forum on other websites provided that attribution and a link to the source is included with the reposted material.

Nothing on this website is intended or should be construed as investment advice. It is intended to be used for informational and entertainment purposes only. We reserve the right to make changes, including change in price, content, description, terms, etc. at any time without notice. By using this board you agree that you understand the risks of trading, and are solely responsible for your own investment and trading decisions. Read full legal disclaimer.

Journalists are not permitted to contact iTulip members through this forum's email and personal messaging services without written permission from iTulip, Inc. Requests for permission may be made via Contact Us.

Objectionable posts may be reported to the board administrators via Contact Us.

-->