Climategate: it's all unravelling now - You think!?
Javimendo
December 02, 2009 16:37:56
So many new developments: which story do we pick? Maybe best to summarise, instead. After all, it’s not like you’re going to find much of this reported in the MSM.
1. Australia’s Senate rejects Emissions Trading Scheme for a second time. Or: so turkeys don’t vote Christmas. Expect to see a lot more of this: politicians starting to become aware their party’s position on AGW is completely out of kilter with the public mood and economic reality. Kevin Rudd’s Emissions Trading Scheme – what Andrew Bolt calls “a $114 billion green tax on everything” – would have wreaked havoc on the coal-dependent Australian economy. That’s why several opposition Liberal frontbenchers resigned rather than vote with the Government on ETS; why Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull lost his job; and why the Senate voted down the ETS.
2. Danes caught fiddling their carbon credits. (Hat tip: Philip Stott) Carbon trading is the Emperor’s New Clothes of international finance. It was invented by none other than Ken Lay, whose Enron would currently be one of the prime beneficiaries in the global alternative energy market, if it hadn’t been shown to be (nearly) as fraudulent as the current AGW scam. It is a licence to fleece, cheat and rob. Still, jolly embarrassing for the Danes to get caught red handed, what with their hosting a conference shortly in which the world’s leaders will try, straight-faced, to persuade us that carbon emissions trading is the only viable way of defeating ManBearPig.
3. Hats off to The Daily Express – the first British newspaper to make the AGW scam its front page story. The piece was inspired by another bravura performance by Professor Ian Plimer, the Aussie geologist who argues that climate change has been going on quite naturally, oblivious of human activity, for the last 4,567 million years.
4. BBC finally gets round to reporting – sort of – that Climatic Research Unit at University of East Anglia may have been up to no good. It’s true that this report on their website is so hedged with special pleading for the temporarily suspended director Phil Jones the man might have written it himself. But on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme this morning, I did hear the newsreader reporting it as more than just a routine theft story. Which is a start.
5. Legal actions ahoy! Over the next few weeks, one thing we can be absolutely certain of is concerted efforts by the rich, powerful and influential AGW lobby to squash the Climategate story. We’ve seen this already in the “nothing to see here” response of Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the jet-setting, troll-impersonating railway engineer who runs the IPCC and wants to stop ice being served with water in restaurants. This is why those of us who oppose his scheme to carbon-tax the global economy back to the dark ages must do everything in our power to bring the scandal to a wider audience. One way to do this is law suits.
At Ian Plimer’s lunch talk yesterday, Viscount Monckton talked of at least two in the offing – both by scientists, one British, one Canadian, who intend to pursue the CRU for criminal fraud. Their case, quite simply, is that the scientists implicated in Climategate have gained funding and career advancement by twisting data, hiding evidence, and shutting out dissenters by corrupting the peer-review process. More news on this, as I hear it.
Lord Monckton has written an indispensible summary of the Climategate revelations so far.
6. Watch out Green Dave! The Independent reports on the growing backlash within the party to Cameron’s libtard-wooing greenery. Turning to the Independent for a balanced report on environmental matters is a bit like consulting Der Sturmer for a sensible, insightful view on the Jewish question. Still, for once, the house journal of eco-loonery seems to have got it right and the point made by Tory backbencher David Davis is well made:
“The ferocious determination to impose hair-shirt policies on the public – taxes on holiday flights, or covering our beautiful countryside with wind turbines that look like props from War of the Worlds – is bound to cause a reaction in any democratic country.”
1. Australia’s Senate rejects Emissions Trading Scheme for a second time. Or: so turkeys don’t vote Christmas. Expect to see a lot more of this: politicians starting to become aware their party’s position on AGW is completely out of kilter with the public mood and economic reality. Kevin Rudd’s Emissions Trading Scheme – what Andrew Bolt calls “a $114 billion green tax on everything” – would have wreaked havoc on the coal-dependent Australian economy. That’s why several opposition Liberal frontbenchers resigned rather than vote with the Government on ETS; why Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull lost his job; and why the Senate voted down the ETS.
2. Danes caught fiddling their carbon credits. (Hat tip: Philip Stott) Carbon trading is the Emperor’s New Clothes of international finance. It was invented by none other than Ken Lay, whose Enron would currently be one of the prime beneficiaries in the global alternative energy market, if it hadn’t been shown to be (nearly) as fraudulent as the current AGW scam. It is a licence to fleece, cheat and rob. Still, jolly embarrassing for the Danes to get caught red handed, what with their hosting a conference shortly in which the world’s leaders will try, straight-faced, to persuade us that carbon emissions trading is the only viable way of defeating ManBearPig.
3. Hats off to The Daily Express – the first British newspaper to make the AGW scam its front page story. The piece was inspired by another bravura performance by Professor Ian Plimer, the Aussie geologist who argues that climate change has been going on quite naturally, oblivious of human activity, for the last 4,567 million years.
4. BBC finally gets round to reporting – sort of – that Climatic Research Unit at University of East Anglia may have been up to no good. It’s true that this report on their website is so hedged with special pleading for the temporarily suspended director Phil Jones the man might have written it himself. But on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme this morning, I did hear the newsreader reporting it as more than just a routine theft story. Which is a start.
5. Legal actions ahoy! Over the next few weeks, one thing we can be absolutely certain of is concerted efforts by the rich, powerful and influential AGW lobby to squash the Climategate story. We’ve seen this already in the “nothing to see here” response of Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the jet-setting, troll-impersonating railway engineer who runs the IPCC and wants to stop ice being served with water in restaurants. This is why those of us who oppose his scheme to carbon-tax the global economy back to the dark ages must do everything in our power to bring the scandal to a wider audience. One way to do this is law suits.
At Ian Plimer’s lunch talk yesterday, Viscount Monckton talked of at least two in the offing – both by scientists, one British, one Canadian, who intend to pursue the CRU for criminal fraud. Their case, quite simply, is that the scientists implicated in Climategate have gained funding and career advancement by twisting data, hiding evidence, and shutting out dissenters by corrupting the peer-review process. More news on this, as I hear it.
Lord Monckton has written an indispensible summary of the Climategate revelations so far.
6. Watch out Green Dave! The Independent reports on the growing backlash within the party to Cameron’s libtard-wooing greenery. Turning to the Independent for a balanced report on environmental matters is a bit like consulting Der Sturmer for a sensible, insightful view on the Jewish question. Still, for once, the house journal of eco-loonery seems to have got it right and the point made by Tory backbencher David Davis is well made:
“The ferocious determination to impose hair-shirt policies on the public – taxes on holiday flights, or covering our beautiful countryside with wind turbines that look like props from War of the Worlds – is bound to cause a reaction in any democratic country.”
More: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/...
We depend 50% on coal and POUND FOR POUND is has the HIGHEST amount of BTU ( therms).
IT can burn clean,and efficienntly.
Soon ALGORE will be EXILED !! ( he will call it a vacation LOL)
Algore bails on lecture at Copenhagen......
http://hotair.com/archives/20...
Manbearpig to send staff:
[IMG]http://i85.photobucket.c...
I have been arguing for years that many of the scientific arguments for catastrophic AGW were clearly wrong. The case was never proven. Basically, the main argument was always that more warming was occurring than could be explained by our understanding of natural forces, so it must be man's emissions of CO2 doing the warming of the late 20th Century. Well, that is a very weak argument. You see, we also could never explain many well known warm periods over millions of years either and they surely were not caused by man's emissions of CO2. Fortunately, some good work has been done in recent years by some dissenting scientists to better explain the climate based on natural forces. We still have much to learn, but if we could get the politicians to fund some of this work even a fraction of what the AGW was funded at, we would likely make rapid progress.
I am not seek...
I have been arguing for years that many of the scientific arguments for catastrophic AGW were clearly wrong. The case was never proven. Basically, the main argument was always that more warming was occurring than could be explained by our understanding of natural forces, so it must be man's emissions of CO2 doing the warming of the late 20th Century. Well, that is a very weak argument. You see, we also could never explain many well known warm periods over millions of years either and they surely were not caused by man's emissions of CO2. Fortunately, some good work has been done in recent years by some dissenting scientists to better explain the climate based on natural forces. We still have much to learn, but if we could get the politicians to fund some of this work even a fraction of what the AGW was funded at, we would likely make rapid progress.
I am not seeking funds for myself here. I am busy working on improving the use of materials for the private sector in my materials analysis laboratory. But, I took a strong interest in the AGW claims about 3 years ago and quickly began a catalog of really poor science. I was dismayed at how bad these scientists were.
-- Call the IPCC & tell 'em to turn up the heat. The plebes are beginning to suspect something's not computing properly ...
Lot of people will have egg on their face if the story becomes widely known, Lots of people would prefer that not happen, for various reasons
Example: Al Gore is going to look like a naïve fool.
All the scientists agree blah, blah blah. There are a few “key” scientists that assemble all the real science and combine it into a huge mathematical model (complex equation).
Those that control the collection, and provide conclusions for the summary report of the UN IPCC, are in a key position to include and exclude the often conflicting data and/or convert all kinds of different “data” into a common “equation”. As a result any errors, mistakes or fraud are greatly magnified and can dramatically affect the results.
If these key people are not “trustworthy” the answer may come out radically different.
This article, is one of an on going series that cuts through the BS and focuses on the activities of thoes that “control” the final results.
The common myth that scientist are always objective, non-political is just that – a myth. Research grants and professional prestige can get in the way.
Climate science an...
Lot of people will have egg on their face if the story becomes widely known, Lots of people would prefer that not happen, for various reasons
Example: Al Gore is going to look like a naïve fool.
All the scientists agree blah, blah blah. There are a few “key” scientists that assemble all the real science and combine it into a huge mathematical model (complex equation).
Those that control the collection, and provide conclusions for the summary report of the UN IPCC, are in a key position to include and exclude the often conflicting data and/or convert all kinds of different “data” into a common “equation”. As a result any errors, mistakes or fraud are greatly magnified and can dramatically affect the results.
If these key people are not “trustworthy” the answer may come out radically different.
This article, is one of an on going series that cuts through the BS and focuses on the activities of thoes that “control” the final results.
The common myth that scientist are always objective, non-political is just that – a myth. Research grants and professional prestige can get in the way.
Climate science and all its related components is the orphan stepchild of mainstream science and competes with all other fields for the pool of research funds and glamor and prestige.
See how those might effect their judgment, unless checked and counterbalanced.
Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation
Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.
ooh ooh he's called gunner he must be a murderer his name has gun in it...
There is world history which appears to differ from the convoluted american history...
I've met Veterans, remember the Aussies? they shared memories with me, I'd care not to repeat about the US forces...
Remember the African incident? US Forces murdering 200 Africana homesteaders?
My g parents... [...]
Don’t insult me with tolerance talk…
Procede to hell... oh yeah... you're already there...
Kim Phuq centred ... remember this?
I love the smell of Napalm in the morning.... and burning flesh for lunch...
You have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself.
While you have some personality weaknesses you are generally able to compensate for them. You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage.
Disciplined and self-controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure on the inside.
At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing.
You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations.
You also pride yourself as an independent thinker; and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof.
But you have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others.
At times you are extroverted, affable, and sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, and reserved.
Some of your aspirations tend to be rather unrealistic.
You're a textbook classic... get over yourself..
Here is a follow up question. How much science does a lawyer take in college?
Then why should they carry any weight in scientific debates?
I'm pretty sure that Gore is not about to let go! He's become an expert in perpetuating this hoax and it's his baby!
We were taught that Science was the Search for the truth. These scientist have lost all credibility.