Ryze - Business Networking Get a Coderbuddy developer now
www.coderbuddy.com

"I Highly Recommend Them" - Magnitude.io CEO; US timezone; affordable rates; Silicon Valley leadership
Get your software built!
Buy Ethereum and Bitcoin
Get started with Cryptocurrency investing
Home Invite Friends Networks Friends classifieds
Home

Apply for Membership

About Ryze


Innovation Network
Previous Topic | Next Topic | Topics
The Innovation Network Network is not currently active and cannot accept new posts
35 Inconvenient TruthsViews: 1397
Nov 17, 2009 10:14 pm35 Inconvenient Truths#

Ron Sam
A debate will never happen between Christopher Monckton and Al Gore because Al Gore can't even counter the 35 issues or lies in his movie.

Please check out the other articles and downloads at SPPI (Science & Public Policy Institute)

ron



35 Inconvenient Truths
http://3.ly/LLc

The errors in Al Gore’s movie


I liked this one:

ERROR #4
CO2 "driving temperature"
Gore says that in each of the last four interglacial warm periods it was changes in carbon dioxide concentration that caused changes in temperature. It was the other way about. Changes in temperature preceded changes in CO2 concentration by between 800 and 2800 years, as scientific papers including the paper on which Gore’s film had relied had made clear.

Ms. Kreider says it is true that “greenhouse gas levels and temperature changes in the ice signals have a complicated relationship but they do fit.” This does not address Gore’s error at all. The judge found that Gore had very clearly implied that it was changes in carbon dioxide concentration that had led to changes in temperature in the palaeoclimate, when the scientific literature is unanimous (save only for a single paper by James Hansen, whom Gore trusts) to the effect that the relationship was in fact the other way about, with a carbon dioxide feedback contributing only a comparatively insignificant further increase to temperature after the temperature change had itself initiated a change in carbon dioxide concentration.

The significance of this error was explained during the court proceedings, and was accepted by the judge. Gore says that the 100 ppmv difference between carbon dioxide concentrations during ice-age temperature minima and interglacial temperature maxima represents “the difference between a nice day and a mile of ice above your head.” This would imply a CO2 effect on temperature about 10 times greater than that regarded as plausible by the consensus of mainstream scientific opinion (see Error 10).

Ms. Kreider refers readers to a “more complete description” available at a website maintained by, among others, two of the three authors of the now-discredited “hockey stick” graph that falsely attempted to abolish the Mediaeval Warm Period. The National Academy of Sciences in the US had found that graph to have “a validation skill not significantly different from zero” – i.e., the graph was useless.

Private Reply to Ron Sam

Nov 18, 2009 12:27 amre: 35 Inconvenient Truths#

John Stephen Veitch
Ron

I don't have time to waste on a charlatan like Christopher Monckton.

I've created a Wiki page here:
http://ryzeinnovation.wikispaces.com/35+Inconvenient+Truths

I've put up the one argument you like most. Please modify it if I've misrepresented the case.

Please also add ALL the other arguments you think you can defend. Please argue science. If you want to understand what science is read about Sir Karl Popper on scientific method.

John Stephen Veitch; The Network Ambassador
Open Future Limited - http://www.openfuture.co.nz/
Innovation Network - http://veech-network.ryze.com/
Building an Open Future - http://openfuture-network.ryze.com/

Private Reply to John Stephen Veitch

Nov 18, 2009 12:30 amre: 35 Inconvenient Truths#

Thomas Holford
The real calamity is not "global warming", it is the almost complete extinction of the practice of serious science.

Virtually ALL climate science research is funded by governments. Governments have huge self-interest in scaring the pants off of their citizens and encouraging citizens to believe they are up against problems so vast and complex that only government can solve them.

When government passes out grant money for research projects, astute scientists understand that NOT discovering anything to be alarmed about is not the way to get more grant money.

The template is to discover that there are alarming indications that things MIGHT be awful and COULD get worse, and that much more research money is need to get a better understanding of the problem and possible solutions.

Serious scientific research, done with dispassionate honesty and integrity, has become a tragic victim of "coin-operated science".

T. Holford

Private Reply to Thomas Holford

Nov 18, 2009 1:25 am35 Inconvenient Truths#

Mike Fesler BizHarmony
Important free broadcast - Not Evil Just Wrong – Global Warming Science or Religion

Who: Everyone and all skeptics are welcome.

Where: AFA Action Alert Video webcast
http://action.afa.net/videos/NotEvilJustWrong/Alternate.aspx
and AFR radio. http://action.afa.net/Radio/

stations nationwide.

When: Tuesday November 17, 2009 7pm CDT or 8PM EDT

Tim Wildmon and Crane Durham of AFA will be joined by Ann McElhinney, Phelim McAleer the makers of the movie Not Evil Just Wrong and other guests including members of Congress and Business people as we discuss the Green Religion that is being scared upon us by the secular humanists.

Get the facts and counter the myths ,we have brought out the experts to arm you. The webcast will clearly layout the distortions and the marketing strategy involved in this deception. See why our leaders have embraced this movement to grab total control of our lives and use population control to satisfy there reckless desire for power.

There will be live blogging from the audience and phone calls as we expect the turnout to be large as this issue is critical to our families future.

M.

Private Reply to Mike Fesler BizHarmony

Nov 18, 2009 1:26 amre: re: 35 Inconvenient Truths#

Thomas Holford
John Stephen Veitch sayeth:

> Please also add ALL the other arguments you think you can defend. Please argue science. If you want to understand what science is read about Sir Karl Popper on scientific method.

This is naive. The problem is that there are so many issues and so much data that dispute human caused global warming that dialogue and debates on global warming inevitably spin off in all directions.

The epistemology of western civilization requires that the burden of proof is on the affirmative proposition.

In order to establish the validity of the human caused global warming proposition, proponents need to carefully establish a lengthy and complicated chain of causality:

E.g., that the earth is warming, that greenhouse gases are the cause of global warming, that CO2 is the principle gas causing the global warming, that human activity is the principle source of human caused global warming, that normal natural processes that remove atmospheric CO2 somehow fail to remove CO2, etc. etc. etc.

For human caused global warming to be true, all of the elements in the chain of causality must be shown to be true.

If ONE element in the chain of causality is discredited,, then the ulimate proposition cannot be asserted as valid.

There is a long, and growing list of issues and data that dispute or call into question the global warming chain of causality.

My experience has been that global warming believers view the multiplicity of discrediting data as too much to deal with and tend to dismiss it. Their understanding of human caused global warming is based on a limited set of premises, and disproving their premises entails a long discovery process to understand exactly which premises they think are the KEY ones.

In the specific case of Al Gore, it is obvious that his PowerPoint presentation contains a number of flawed premises. Specifically, Gore asserts that increasing CO2 CAUSES atmospheric warming, when in fact the causal relationship is exactly reversed: atmospheric warming causes ocean warmimg, which causes the oceans to release CO2 into the atmosphere, which results in increased atmospheric CO2.

To my knowledge, Al Gore has never acknowledged that his assertions about atmospheric CO2 and temperature are reversed from scientific reality, and since he never exposes himself to questioning or debate, it is unclear what data would have any effect on his beliefs.

For the record, here are some sources of information that dispute human caused global warming. There are MANY arguments and much data encompassed by these sources, but neither I nor anyone else can assert that these are ALL arguments that dispute human caused global warming.

http://www.climatedepot.com/

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/

http://www.junkscience.com/

http://www.climateaudit.org/

http://icecap.us/index.php

And 35 books on "deconstructing global warming".

http://amzn.com/l/RS5NNWLFR2YUY


And to save yourself from the embarrassment of claiming that people who "deny" human caused global warming are nothing but a bunch of ignorant provincial neanderthals, you might want to read this book first:

http://www.amazon.com/Deniers-Renowned-Scientists-Political-Persecution/dp/0980076315/ref=cm_lmf_tit_8


T. Holford

Private Reply to Thomas Holford

Nov 18, 2009 10:27 pmre: re: re: 35 Inconvenient Truths#

Ron Sam
John,

If Christopher Monckton is a charlatan, is it because of this?
http://3.ly/LafU

If not, please explain.

You do know of the;

Mathematical proof that there is no “climate crisis” appeared in a major, peer-reviewed paper in 'Physics and Society', a learned journal of the 4,600-strong American Physical Society.

http://3.ly/Fly
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/index.cfm
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/upload/july08.pdf

Ron

Private Reply to Ron Sam

Nov 18, 2009 10:43 pmre: re: re: re: 35 Inconvenient Truths#

Ron Sam
I was surprised that Karl Popper was opposed to Marxism.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/18/obituaries/sir-karl-popper-is-dead-at-92-philosopher-of-open-society.html


Global Warming Myth and Marxism (Pdf)
History of how used by U.N. and Marxists to Wreck World Economies
http://3.ly/PPCP





"Communism and environmentalism — we are talking about two ideologies that are structurally very similar. They are against individual freedom. They are in favor of centralist master-minding of our fates. They are both very similar in telling us what to do, how to live, how to behave, what to eat, how to travel, what we can do and what we cannot do. There is a huge similarity in this respect."
Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic

Private Reply to Ron Sam

Nov 19, 2009 3:04 amre: re: re: re: re: 35 Inconvenient Truths#

John Stephen Veitch
The response of Mike, Sam and Thomas to this topic is very disappointing.

Each of you has adopted a political stance and all of you refuse to argue the science.

Let's deal to Christopher Monckton, the Charlatan.

"Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (born 14 February 1952) is a British politician, business consultant, policy adviser, writer, columnist, and inventor. He served as an advisor to Margaret Thatcher's policy unit in the 1980s.

He has expressed doubt about the reality of global warming in a number of newspaper articles and papers. He has been described in some quarters as a "former science adviser to British prime minister Margaret Thatcher and a world-renowned scholar.""

Monckton worked as a journalist from the age of 22. He apparently has no degree. He obtained a diploma in journalism.

"In 1979 Monckton met Alfred Sherman, who co-founded the pro-Conservative think tank the Centre for Policy Studies with Margaret Thatcher and Keith Joseph in 1974.

He wrote a paper on the privatization of council housing by means of a rent-to-mortgages scheme that brought him to the attention of Downing Street. Ferdinand Mount, the head of the Number 10 Policy Unit and a former CPS director, brought Monckton into the Policy Unit in 1982, where he worked until 1986 as a special advisor on economic matters.

Monckton was an unsuccessful candidate for a Conservative seat in the House of Lords in a March 2007 by-election caused by the death of Lord Mowbray and Stourton.

The British writer and environmentalist George Monbiot has criticized Monckton's arguments, labeling them "cherry-picking, downright misrepresentation and pseudo-scientific gibberish."

Monckton has "no training whatsoever in science", and criticize his asserted credentials as "unfounded self-promotion.""

(All of the above from Wikipedia.)

Thomas will be pleased to note the Monckton is a sophist in the modern sense of the word. The question is, are Mike, Ron and Thomas also sophists in the same way. Using Thomas;s own definition of a "sophist". "They were (ultimately) famous/notorious for being agnostic about "truth". Their claimed expertise was how to make "the weaker argument appear the stronger".

***********
Mike offered a religious justification for ignoring Global warming in the "AFA Action Alert Video webcast".

Honestly Mike, be serious.

************

Thomas's argument is pseudo-scientific. He begins with a more or less correct statement.
"The epistemology of western civilization requires that the burden of proof is on the affirmative proposition."

And then he destroys his good work by completely misrepresenting what's intended.

Which is why I mentioned Karl Popper. Popper said that proper science was an art form that required the creation of hypotheses that were precisely stated as a positive statement that can be falsified.

WHEN that situation exists no number of repeated successful experiments can prove the proposition to be valid, but any single failure will prove it invalid.

Much of what is called normal science proceeds on the basis of that practice.

Climate change is a bit more difficult. You can't put the climate in a laboratory, and close down the variables at will. Climate science is conducted in a living and changing open environment.

So for the last 100 years or more scientists have been trying to understand various subsystems in the natural environment. The oxygen cycle, the water cycle, the nitrogen cycle and the carbon cycle as examples. How does the land and the ocean alter the climate?

The IPCC has a mountain of evidence backing the view that global warming is occurring and that man made environmental changes are destabilizing the climate towards much more rapid and permanent global warming than anyone suspected would be possible only 30 years ago.

This is "standard science" doing what standard science does. Now of course there's a long history of standard science being wrong. And, who knows, standard science might be wrong now, but you'll need to prove it.

************

Ron

The Science and Public Policy Institute seem to be a pseudo science group set up to oppose standard climate science. When they quote Monckton as their expert, they undermine any credibility they might have had.

The American Physical Society seems to be at war with itself. The APS in November 2007, adopted a policy saying: "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur."

However on Forum on Physics & Society, in July 2008, is backing away from that view, saying that it's not the view of the Executive.

Sadly, they too choose to use Monckton as their "expert".

***********

Ron,

I wasn't thinking about the political views of Karl Popper, but yes he favored democratic means and open discussion, and he would approve of this forum. It's up to us not to disgrace the fine example he set.

Further down the article there is reference to the philosophy of science work he did, which was my concern.

Then you insult me by dishing out a garbage text on the threat of Communism and the United Nations. The first two pages were full of untruth and distortions of reality. I could read no further. Garbage in / Garbage out; Ron. If you feed yourself, if you consume this sort of wildly distorted rubbish, you'll become just like him.

Edward F. Blick, discredits himself as a serious voice. I'd say without reading further that he's a religious crank. Dangerous in the same way Osama bin Laden is dangerous.

John Stephen Veitch; The Network Ambassador
Open Future Limited - http://www.openfuture.co.nz/
Innovation Network - http://veech-network.ryze.com/
Building an Open Future - http://openfuture-network.ryze.com/

Private Reply to John Stephen Veitch

Nov 19, 2009 4:48 am35 Inconvenient Truths#

Mike Fesler BizHarmony
John, You said:
“Mike offered a religious justification for ignoring Global warming in the "AFA Action Alert Video webcast".

Honestly Mike, be serious.”

This was just a post from AFA.
More information, more views, more opinions.
Don’t kill the messenger.

I am not a scientist. . . . .
Nor do I play one on the internet.

I do have an opinion about most of this though. . . and most of the scientists listed on either side of this subject could not find their own butt with both hands, on a pitch black night, even if it were set on fire.
It is what it is. . .

Treat the earth with respect, as it is organic and alive. Have you ever known anything alive to be grossly mistreated and or abused or neglected and still survived let alone thrived?

No one. . . and I mean NO ONE on this God’s green earth has the answer because we are expecting to have the level of knowledge of creation and life wrapped in our minds.

Now while some minds may be better than most. . . the answers in totality? Will never be there. It will be just like everything else. . . if you don’t like the one answer, just wait awhile, until our education catches up with our passions a little more. And then you will have your new and improved answer.

PS. The fact that you did not listen to the broadcast is clear. The religion was not part of the premise. The science and the false religion of the bad science is / was.

M.

Private Reply to Mike Fesler BizHarmony

Nov 19, 2009 5:40 amre: re: re: re: re: re: 35 Inconvenient Truths#

Thomas Holford
John Stephen Veitch sayeth:

> Each of you has adopted a political stance and all of you refuse to argue the science.

We shall see, forthwith, who is and who isn't arguing science.

> Monckton has "no training whatsoever in science", and criticize his asserted credentials as "unfounded self-promotion.""

Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., scion of the segregationist Senator, Albert Arnold Gore, Sr. (who himself was a protege of Soviet agent of influence Armand Hammer), Academy Award Winning documentary film producer, Nobel Peace Prize winner, ethically challenged political fundraiser, and Vice President in the corrupt adminstration of impeached president William Jefferson Clinton, got a grade of "C" in the only science course he took while an undergraduate student at Harvard. After Harvard, Gore attended Vanderbilt University Divinity School, but eventually dropped out.

I would say that Al Gore, the Ayatollah of Human Caused Global, really has no credible training in climate science, or any other science for that matter.

- - - - - -

> WHEN that situation exists no number of repeated successful experiments can prove the proposition to be valid, but any single failure will prove it invalid.

> Much of what is called normal science proceeds on the basis of that practice.

> Climate change is a bit more difficult. You can't put the climate in a laboratory, and close down the variables at will. Climate science is conducted in a living and changing open environment.


In other words, since we CAN'T do controlled scientific experiements to prove human caused global warming, we'll just concoct some really alarming science fiction scenarios that will get people's attention, invent some computer models that spew out the answers that we put in, and call that "science".


We'll then declare, on the basis of political belief only, that human caused global warming is "settled science" and have the government stuff billions of dollars of research grant money into thumb sucking "If - Then" studies enumerating thousands of horrible consequences "if global warming is true".


And then all of these thumb sucking "studies" will have to be "peer reviewed" and published somewhere to create jobs for science journal editors, and ultimately an entire pseudo-science ecosystem that feeds entirely of off EPA and UN grant money.

"Peer review" has become such a sham and a joke that even the New York Times has noticed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/health/02docs.html?_r=2&oref=slogin

("For Science's Gatekeepers, a Credibility Gap")

- - - - - -

Now, for the REAL science:

+ The earth's climate has been cooling for the last twenty years.

+ The "hockey stick chart" has been thoroughly debunked and discredited.

+ The "computer models" that purportedly predict "global warming" have many known limitations like, for example, failure to take into account the greenhouse effect of water vapor, failure to accurately include the effects of cloud cover, failure to include the effects of attenuation on solar radiation by space dust, etc.

+ There is, in fact, not even a single computer climate model that is generally accepted as definitive. The computer climate models usually referenced are a "consensus" of different computer models, and the climate predictions represent the "average" of the results reported by the models.

One thing you can be sure of about a prediction which is an average of other independent predictions: it's a statistical certainty that it's wrong.

And of the ten or thirteen independent predictions on which the average prediction is based, all but one of them are CERTAIN to be wrong, and it's a statistical certainty that ALL of them are wrong.

And IF one of them WERE right, no one knows WHICH ONE was right.

+ The present atmospheric concentration of CO2 is historically low on a geological time scale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

+ The oceans are natural sinks for carbon dioxide. And even if CO2 concentration increased, it would probably IMPROVE crop yields, and INCREASE the habitable land area on earth.

+ Sea levels have risen about 300 feet since the end of the last ice age, 10,000 years age. Sea level rise is NATURAL.

+ Carbon is the FOURTH most abundant element in the universe.

+ Oxygen is the THIRD most abundant element in the universe.

If you combine the fourth most abundant element with the third most abundant element in the universe, you have the potential for an awful lot of CO2.

Driving a Prius instead of an SUV will NOT diminish the amount of Carbon or Oxygen in the universe by one atom because of the Law of Conservation of Matter.

+ The Laws of Chemical Thermodynamics require Carbon, Oxygen, and Carbon Dioxide to be in chemical equilibrium.

Unless we find a way to route car exhausts to extraterrestrial space, driving a Prius will not reduce the amount of carbon or oxygen in the atmosphere.

- - - - - -

Back to square one.

Scientific knowledge is based on hypothesis and experiment. The requirement to do experiments to obtain scientific knowledge can't be waived because it's impractical or difficult to do the experiments.

Imaginary experiments, i.e. computer models, produce imaginary scientific results.

Science is not about consensus. Science is about experimentally validated and repeatable results.

The global warming charlatans have spent billions of dollars of misappropriated taxpayer money to promote their con game.

But a growing cadre of serious scientists with ethics and integrity are standing up to the enormous political pressure and insisting that the principles of authentic scientific inquiry be respected and preserved.



T. Holford


Private Reply to Thomas Holford

Nov 19, 2009 10:00 amre: re: 35 Inconvenient Truths#

John Stephen Veitch
Here is an Australian professional geologist with a view on climate change you might enjoy.
Bob Carter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgaeyMa3jyU

Here are some of the comments on his talk. I deleted just two that thought he was brilliant.

Marineninga (1 week ago)
Australia has its different views on climate change, on one side the nationalists and a bit of the liberals don’t believe in climate change, and on the labor as well as most city folk will believe in climate change. IMO ETS bill shouldn’t affect the agricultural industry permanently nor should it surge house hold electricity bills

ReduceGHGs (2 weeks ago)
Sorry, but bulk of the science behind the anthropogenic global warming conclusions are NOT models. The models are in fact useful tools in determining what the future may hold with the application of different variables.
Try reading a book or two about how humans affect the biosphere. Ocean acidification and its consequences, the carbon cycle, and positive reinforcing mechanisms of climate change are all important to learn about.
“Just say NO” is an irrational naysayer approach.

VeryEvilPettingZoo (2 weeks ago)
You want a rebuttal of Carter in this video?
1) ”I occupy the balanced middle of this debate.” Lie. He’s standard deviations away from the norm of the view of climate-related scientists.
2) He says how he’s informing the public of “the real facts, the balanced facts” - and then proceeds to lie and deceive.

VeryEvilPettingZoo (2 weeks ago)
3) He called carbon dioxide “a minor” greenhouse gas that causes “a small” amount of warming. Balanced? Hmmm... He compared it to water vapor, conveniently leaving out that the water cycle is so quick/responsive to temps that it’s considered a feedback mechanism, not a forcing agent. He also ignored how dry the upper atmosphere is. The upper atmosphere is where greenhouse gases have their major impact on the Earth’s energy budget. CO2 is fairly evenly mixed in the atmosphere; H2O is not.

VeryEvilPettingZoo (2 weeks ago)
4) He said “if you calculate – and this is not a disputed figure – both the [IPCC] and independent analysts agree – that if you double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from pre-Industrial times, then the amount of warming will be about a degree.”
That’s a bold faced lie. See the IPCC FAR, Summary for Policy Makers, page 12:
“The equilibrium climate sensitivity is a measure of the climate system response to sustained radiative forcing. It is not a projection but is defined as the global average surface warming following a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations. It is likely to be in the range 2 C to 4.5 C with a best estimate of about 3 C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5 C.”
(The report explicitly defines “likely” as at least 66% chance, and “very unlikely” as less than 10% chance.)

ReduceGHGs (3 weeks ago)
Bob Carter is corporate sponsored. His background is geology and NOT climatology. In addition, he has no study to back up his claims. Weigh the word of individuals like this against what all of our historically reliable institutions have been saying. There’s no comparison and there’s no credible doubt no matter how much the vested interests want the people to believe that ther is.

goog2k (3 weeks ago)
ScienceNews
“These same methane clathrates are present today in the Arctic permafrost as well as below sea level, and remain dormant until triggered by warming.
“This is a major concern because it’s possible that only a little warming can unleash this trapped methane. Unzippering the methane reservoir could warm the Earth TENS OF DEGREES, and the mechanism could be geologically very rapid.”
Search : Large Methane Release Could Cause Abrupt Climate Change

ReduceGHGs (3 weeks ago)
Bob Carter deserves respect? Hardly.
His profession is in geology, and he is paid by corporate interests.
To refute his claims that climate forecasts are all up in the air, I recommend also reading what our reliable scientific institutions have been saying.
Google: Scientific Opinion on Climate Change Wiki
For more information try UCSUSA(dot)org

ReduceGHGs (4 weeks ago)
Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
“It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.”
P.S. Carter is a corporate hack.


John Stephen Veitch; The Network Ambassador
Open Future Limited - http://www.openfuture.co.nz/
Innovation Network - http://veech-network.ryze.com/
Building an Open Future - http://openfuture-network.ryze.com/

Private Reply to John Stephen Veitch

Nov 19, 2009 7:46 pmre: re: re: 35 Inconvenient Truths#

Thomas Holford
> ReduceGHGs (2 weeks ago)
. . .
Try reading a book or two about how humans affect the biosphere. Ocean acidification and its consequences, the carbon cycle, and positive reinforcing mechanisms of climate change are all important to learn about.
“Just say NO” is an irrational naysayer approach.

Try reading a book?

OK.

1. The Resilient Earth: Science, Global Warming and the Fate of Humanity by Dr. Doug L. Hoffman

2. Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science by Ian Plimer

3. Air Con: The Seriously Inconvenient Truth About Global Warming by Ian Wishart

4. Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop

5. Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don't Want You to Know by Patrick J. Michaels

6. Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed by Christopher C. Horner

7. Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor by Roy W. Spencer

8. The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so by Lawrence Solomon

9. The Really Inconvenient Truths: Seven Environmental Catastrophes Liberals Don't Want You to Know About--Because They Helped Cause Them by Iain Hamish Murray

10. Scared to Death: From BSE to Global Warming: Why Scares are Costing Us the Earth by Christopher Booker

11. Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming by Bjřrn Lomborg

12. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism) by Christopher C. Horner

13. The Chilling Stars, 2nd Edition: A Cosmic View of Climate Change by Henrik Svensmark

14. The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World by Bjřrn Lomborg

15. Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years by S. Fred Singer

16. Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming by Patrick J. Michaels

And, there are plenty more.

This is what convinces my that leftist utopians are sophistic solipsists who live inside of their own heads.

They simply cannot grasp that there is an alternate paradigm in the external world of objective reality.


T. Holford

Private Reply to Thomas Holford

Nov 19, 2009 8:15 pmre: re: re: 35 Inconvenient Truths#

Thomas Holford
> ReduceGHGs (2 weeks ago)
. . .
Try reading a book or two about how humans affect the biosphere. Ocean acidification and its consequences, the carbon cycle, and positive reinforcing mechanisms of climate change are all important to learn about.
“Just say NO” is an irrational naysayer approach.


I think this illustrates perfectly that the "Global Warming Debate" really reduces down to Socrates vs. the Sophists.

Global Warming Believers assert over and over "there is no debate", "the science is settled", "read OUR book; DON'T read THEIR book (THEIR book is irrelevant)". There is a "scientific consensus" that global warming is occurring. Consensus suffices as "truth". The actual truth is irrelevant. These are sophistic positions.

Global Warming Skeptics DO read the Believers books. They HAVE to read them in order to rebut them. The skeptics SEEK debate ("Socratic dialogue") and search for the truth. The Believers, in contrast, avoid debate. Al Gore is famous for NEVER engaging in open debate. There are even groups offering sizeble cash prizes or donations to charity if Gore would agree to a debate. He won't.

The Global Warming Skeptics really fill the role of Socrates' truth seeking in the climate debate.

The Global Warming Believers need to prove that EVERYTHING they assert about human caused warming is true. The Skeptics need to assert only that at least one essential element of global warming is NOT proven.

T. Holford

Private Reply to Thomas Holford

Nov 21, 2009 4:04 amre: re: re: re: 35 Inconvenient Truths > believe in a charlatan like Gore?#

Ron Sam
With Hurricanes At Thirty Year Low, Gore Turns To Photoshop
charlatan 
taking advantages via some form of pretence or deception

With Hurricanes At Thirty Year Low, Gore Turns To Photoshop

The King of cap and trade simply airbrushes them in to his new book to create a more scary earth

With Hurricanes At Thirty Year Low, Gore Turns To Photoshop 191109top

Paul Joseph Watson
Thursday, November 19, 2009

With the increasingly discredited notion of man-made global warming crashing and burning on a daily basis, climate alarmists are being forced to accelerate their fearmongering to unprecedented levels. With the evidence failing to match up to the doomsday proclamations, Al Gore has turned to photoshop in order to make a CO2-choked earth look scary enough to sell his cap and trade scam.

The latest example of climate cult fakery comes in the form of the front cover of Al Gore’s new book, Our Choice; A Plan To Solve The Climate Crisis.

Shortly after the devastation of Katrina, Al Gore was busy making a correlation between hurricanes and global warming in an effort to drive home his claim that higher global CO2 emissions cause an increase in extreme weather events. The cover art for Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, features an image of a hurricane rising out of a smoke stack.

Seemingly underwhelmed that there have been no major hurricanes since Katrina, along with the fact that global hurricane activity is now at a thirty year low, Gore came up with an ingenious method of solving the problem of the lack of scary depictions of frightening hurricanes to display on his book – simply airbrush them in!

Ryan Maue, hurricane expert from the University of Florida writes:

With Hurricanes At Thirty Year Low, Gore Turns To Photoshop 191109top3

The cover opens and closes half and half — so you only see one hurricane…as in the press release photo or the one on Amazon.

But this is the real picture sequence from the book which I looked at Borders today and took cell-phone pictures, original (before the retouching by some “artist”) Note all of the Arctic ice and the size of the Florida Peninsula…

And the final product:

With Hurricanes At Thirty Year Low, Gore Turns To Photoshop 191109top4

A midget Southern Hemisphere cyclone is off the coast of Florida, another hurricane is sitting on the equator off the coast of Peru — and the Arctic Ice is gone (perhaps it is summer) and the Florida Peninsula is half gone

There are other differences I am sure you can find — but the hurricanes are just nonsense…

Despite the fact that CO2 levels are at their highest for 15 million years, just like global temperatures, hurricane activity has dropped off dramatically, as the graph below illustrates.

With Hurricanes At Thirty Year Low, Gore Turns To Photoshop 191109top2

Gore has now dropped the presentation from his slideshow claiming a link between CO2 emissions and hurricanes.

There is a clear correlation between the natural ebb and flow of global temperatures and hurricanes, but none whatsoever with human CO2 emissions. As many skeptics have attempted to highlight, in the face of official intimidation and quasi-religious decrees that “the debate is over,” temperature levels prompted by natural factors leads the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, not the other way around.

With his invention of scary hurricanes for the purposes of his book, Gore is merely following his new ethos that “Simply laying out the facts won’t work,” in the attempt to corral a highly skeptical public into believing claims about man-made global warming.

This represents another grasping at straws as Gore adapts his propaganda into the form of a religious sermon in a desperate effort to claw back rapidly evaporating poll numbers that show 20% of Americans have changed their minds over the last three years and become man-made global warming skeptics.

As we have exhaustively documented, Gore’s motivation for grossly overstating the impact of CO2 emissions goes a lot deeper than his professed love for the planet.

Since he left office, Gore’s personal net worth has skyrocketed on the back of his advocacy for global warming issues and the financial dividends this has reaped. Gore’s assets totaled less than $2 million in 2001 and although he refuses to give a figure for his current net worth, a recent single investment of $35 million in Capricorn Investment Group, a private equity fund, illustrates just how fast Gore has enriched himself from his climate change bandwagon.

As we reported back in March, before he became President, Barack Obama also helped fund the profiteers of the carbon taxation program that he is now seeking to implement as law.

The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) has direct ties to both Al Gore and Maurice Strong, two figures intimately involved with a long standing movement to use the theory of man made global warming as a mechanism for profit and social engineering. Gore’s investment company, Generation Investment Management, which sells carbon offset opportunities, is the largest shareholder of CCX.

Maurice Strong, who is regularly credited as founding father of the modern environmental movement, serves on the board of directors of CCX. Strong was a leading initiate of the Earth Summit in the early 90s, where the theory of global warming caused by CO2 generated by human activity was most notably advanced.

Both Strong and Gore come from the Club of Rome clique, who in their 1991 Report, “The First Global Revolution” openly admitted how they were planning to exploit the contrived hoax of global warming in order to further their agenda.

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.,” they wrote.

Gore’s defense against claims that he is peddling fearmongering about global warming to get filthy rich, and one dutifully supported by the NY Times’ whitewash report, is that he is simply putting his money where his mouth is.

However, Gore’s insistence that he is walking the walk, not just talking the talk, doesn’t seem to extend to his own private life in the context of energy conservation and CO2 emissions. While lecturing the world about reducing CO2 emissions and saving energy, Gore’s own mansion uses 20 times the energy of the average American home.

In February 2007, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research revealed that the gas and electric bills for the former vice president’s 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours. These figures were not disputed by Gore.

“If this were any other person with $30,000-a-year in utility bills, I wouldn’t care,” said the Center’s 27-year-old president, Drew Johnson. “But he tells other people how to live and he’s not following his own rules.”

Private Reply to Ron Sam

Nov 21, 2009 3:22 pmre: re: re: re: re: 35 Inconvenient Truths > believe in a charlatan like Gore?#

Thomas Holford
Ron Sam sayeth:

> charlatan

mountebank: a flamboyant deceiver; one who attracts customers with tricks or jokes
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
A charlatan (also called swindler or mountebank) is a person practicing quackery or some similar confidence trick in order to obtain money, fame ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlatan
taking advantages via some form of pretence or deception


Hmmmm.

Charlatan? mountebank? quack? Snake oil salesman?

It really is hard to know which fits best.


T. Holford

Private Reply to Thomas Holford

Nov 25, 2009 11:00 pmre: 35 Inconvenient Truths > Gore Lawsuits + Climategate Uncovered#

Ron Sam
Al Gore sued by over 30.000 Scientists for Global Warming fraud / John Coleman

Al Gore's Lies Exposed By Congress

The video I want to see is when Al Gore get's his Nobel Prize taken away.

ron

Nov 25, 2009
CRU’s Source Code: Climategate Uncovered

By Marc Sheppard, The American Thinker

As the evidence of climate fraud at the University of East Anglia[s prestigious Climactic Research Unit (CRU) continues to mount, those who’ve been caught green-handed continue to parry their due opprobrium and comeuppance, thanks primarily to a dead-silent mainstream media.  But should the hubris and duplicity evident in the emails of those whose millennial temperature charts literally fuel the warming alarmism movement somehow fail to convince the world of the scam that’s been perpetrated upon it, certainly these revelations of the fraud cooked into the computer programs that create such charts will.

First—Let’s briefly review a few pertinent details. 

We reported on Saturday that among the most revealing of the “hacked” emails released last week was one dated November 1999, in which CRU chief PD Jones wrote these words to Hockey-Stick-Team leaders Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and (sic) from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

Predictably, the suggestion of a climate-related data-adjusting “trick” being employed by such alarmist bellwethers 10 years ago instantly raised more than a few eyebrows.  And with similar alacrity, the Big Green Scare Machine shifted into CYA gear. 

Almost immediately after the news hit on Friday, Jones told Investigative Magazine’s TGIF Edition [PDF] that he “had no idea” what he might have meant by the words “hide the decline” a decade prior: “They’re talking about the instrumental data which is unaltered - but they’re talking about proxy data going further back in time, a thousand years, and it’s just about how you add on the last few years, because when you get proxy data you sample things like tree rings and ice cores, and they don’t always have the last few years. So one way is to add on the instrumental data for the last few years.”

Baloney.

Mere hours later, Jones’s warmist soul mates at RealClimate offered an entirely different explanation: “The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and 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. 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.”

And later that day, Jean S at Climate Audit explained the reality of the quandary. In order to smooth a timed series, it’s necessary to pad it beyond the end-time. But it seems however hard they tried, when MBH plotted instrumental data against their tree ring reconstructions, no smoothing method would ever undo the fact that after 1960, the tree ring series pointed downward while the instrumental series pointed upward - hence the divergence: “So Mann’s solution [Mike’s Nature Trick] was to use the instrumental record for padding [both], which changes the smoothed series to point upwards.”

So the author of the email claimed the “trick” was adding instrumental measurements for years beyond available proxy data, his co-conspirators at Real Climate admitted it was actually a replacement of proxy data due to a known yet inexplicable post-1960 “divergence” anomaly, and CA called it what it was - a cheat.

The next day, the UEA spoke out for the first time on the subject when its first related press-release was posted to its homepage.  And Jones demonstrated to the world the benefits a good night’s sleep imparts to one’s memory, though not one’s integrity: “The word ‘trick’ was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward.”

Tick Tock.

Of course, RealClimate also avowed there was “no evidence of the falsifying of data” in the emails.  But as Jones chose not to walk back his statement that the “tricks” were rarely exercised, and even assured us that he was “refer[ring] to one diagram - not a scientific paper,” his explanation remained at-odds with that of his virtual-confederates at RC.

And as Jones must have known at the time—such would prove to be the very least of CRU’s problems.

Getting with the Green Program(s)

One can only imagine the angst suffered daily by the co-conspirators, who knew full well that the “Documents” sub-folder of the CRU FOI2009 file contained more than enough probative program source code to unmask CRU’s phantom methodology. 

In fact, there are hundreds of IDL and FORTRAN source files buried in dozens of subordinate sub-folders.  And many do properly analyze and chart maximum latewood density (MXD), the growth parameter commonly utilized by CRU scientists as a temperature proxy, from raw or legitimately normalized data.  Ah, but many do so much more. 

Skimming through the often spaghetti-like code, the number of programs which subject the data to a mixed-bag of transformative and filtering routines is simply staggering.  Granted, many of these “alterations” run from benign smoothing algorithms (e.g. omitting rogue outliers) to moderate infilling mechanisms (e.g. estimating missing station data from that of those closely surrounding).  But many others fall into the precarious range between highly questionable (removing MXD data which demonstrate poor correlations with local temperature) to downright fraudulent (replacing MXD data entirely with measured data to reverse a disorderly trend-line).

In fact, workarounds for the post-1960 “divergence problem”, as described by both RealClimate and Climate Audit, can be found throughout the source code.  So much so that perhaps the most ubiquitous programmer’s comment (REM) I ran across warns that the particular module “Uses ‘corrected’ MXD - but shouldn’t usually plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures.”

What exactly is meant by “corrected” MXD, you ask?  Outstanding question—and the answer appears amorphous from program to program.  Indeed, while some employ one or two of the aforementioned “corrections,” others throw everything but the kitchen sink at the raw data prior to output.

For instance, in subfolder ”” there’s a program that calibrates the MXD data against available local instrumental summer (growing season) temperatures between 1911-1990, then merges that data into a new file.  That file is then digested and further modified by another program which creates calibration statistics for the MXD against the stored temperature and “estimates” (infills) figures where such temperature readings were not available.  The file created by that program is modified once again, by a program which “corrects it” - as described by the author—by “identifying” and “artificially” removing “the decline.”

But oddly enough - the series doesn’t begin its “decline adjustment” in 1960—the supposed year of the enigmatic “divergence.” In fact, all data between 1930 and 1994 are subject to “correction.” And such games are by no means unique to the folder attributed to Michael Mann.

A Clear and Present Rearranger

In 2 other programs, briffa_Sep98_d.pro and briffa_Sep98_e.pro, the “correction” is bolder by far. The programmer (Keith Briffa?) entitled the “adjustment” routine “Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!” And he/she wasn’t kidding. Now, IDL is not a native language of mine, but its syntax is similar enough to others I’m familiar with, so please bear with me while I get a tad techie on you.

Here’s the “fudge factor” (notice the brash SOB actually called it that in his REM statement): yrloc = [1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0., 0., 0., 0., 0., -0.1, -0.25, -0.3, 0., -0.1, 0.3, 0.8, 1.2, 1.7, 2.5, 2.6, 2.6, 2.6, 2.6, 2.6] *0.75; fudge factor

These 2 lines of code establish a 20 element array (yrloc) comprised of the year 1400 (base year but not sure why needed here) and 19 years between 1904 and 1994 in half-decade increments.  Then the corresponding “fudge factor” (from the valadj matrix) is applied to each interval.  As you can see, not only are temperatures biased to the upside later in the century (though certainly prior to 1964) but a few mid-century intervals are being biased slightly lower.  That, coupled with the post-1930 restatement we encountered earlier, would imply that in addition to an embarrassing false decline experienced with their MXD after 1960 (or earlier), CRU’s “divergence problem” also includes a minor false incline after 1930.

And the former apparently wasn’t a particularly well-guarded secret, although the actual adjustment period remained buried beneath the surface.

Plotting programs such as data4alps.pro print this reminder to the user prior to rendering the chart: “IMPORTANT NOTE: The data after 1960 should not be used.  The tree-ring density records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer temperature in many high-latitude locations.  In this data set this ‘decline’ has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring density variations, but have been modified to look more like the observed temperatures.”

Others, such as mxdgrid2ascii.pro, issue this warning: “NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY REMOVED to facilitate calibration.  THEREFORE, post-1960 values will be much closer to observed temperatures then (sic) they should be which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful than it actually is.  See Osborn et al. (2004).”

Care to offer another explanation, Dr. Jones?

Gotcha

Clamoring alarmists can and will spin this until they’re dizzy.  The ever-clueless mainstream media can and will ignore this until it’s forced upon them as front-page news, and then most will join the alarmists on the denial merry-go-round.

But here’s what’s undeniable:  If a divergence exists between measured temperatures and those derived from dendrochronological data after (circa) 1960 then discarding only the post-1960 figures is disingenuous to say the least. The very existence of a divergence betrays a potential serious flaw in the process by which temperatures are reconstructed from tree-ring density.  If it’s bogus beyond a set threshold, then any honest men of science would instinctively question its integrity prior to that boundary.  And only the lowliest would apply a hack in order to produce a desired result.

And to do so without declaring as such in a footnote on every chart in every report in every study in every book in every classroom on every website that such a corrupt process is relied upon is not just a crime against science, it’s a crime against mankind.

Indeed, miners of the CRU folder have unearthed dozens of email threads and supporting documents revealing much to loathe about this cadre of hucksters and their vile intentions.  This veritable goldmine has given us tales ranging from evidence destruction to spitting on the Freedom of Information Act on both sides of the Atlantic. But the now irrefutable evidence that alarmists have indeed been cooking the data for at least a decade may just be the most important strike in human history.

Advocates of the global governance or financial redistribution sought by the United Nations at Copenhagen in two weeks and the expanded domestic governance and financial redistribution sought by Liberal politicians both substantiate their drastic proposals with the pending climate emergency predicted in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  Kyoto, Waxman-Markey, Kerry-Boxer, EPA regulation of the very substances of life - all bad policy concepts enabled solely by IPCC reports.  And the IPCC, in turn, bases those reports largely on the data and charts provided by the research scientists as CRU - largely from tree ring data—who just happen to be editors and lead authors of that same U.N. panel.

Bottom line:  CRU’s evidence is now irrevocably tainted.  As such—all assumptions based on that evidence must now be reevaluated and readjudicated. And all policy based on those counterfeit assumptions must also be re-examined.

Gotcha.  We’ve known they’ve been lying all along, and now we can prove it.  It’s time to bring sanity back to this debate.  It’s time for the First IPCC Reassessment Report.  See post here.


Private Reply to Ron Sam

Nov 25, 2009 11:49 pm35 Inconvenient Truths > Gore Lawsuits + Climategate Uncovered#

Mike Fesler BizHarmony
Nobel Peace Prize:

Between that and $5.00 he can get a cup of coffee.

Let him keep it. . . it is worthless anyway. It has lost any and all value and credibility since they started politicizing the award anyway.

It has become an icon or monument to a greater farce, by ignoring the ones that have truly sacrificed and made a measurable difference and Giving it away before it has been earned. . . . . sheesh.

M.

Private Reply to Mike Fesler BizHarmony

Nov 26, 2009 12:09 amre: 35 Inconvenient Truths > Gore Lawsuits + Climategate Uncovered#

Ed and Yvonne Servis
Mike
I think they ought to give a prace prize to whoever it was that made the emails public. They have saved us all from Algore.
Ed

Private Reply to Ed and Yvonne Servis

Nov 27, 2009 5:10 pm35 Inconvenient Truths > Gore Lawsuits + Climategate Uncovered#

Mike Fesler BizHarmony
They haven’t saved us yet. . . .

When have you ever seen that far left be hindered by a little old thing like an incontinent . . . . .

I mean inconvenient truth?


Change you voted for:

Change from
HOPE
To
FEAR

M.

Private Reply to Mike Fesler BizHarmony

Nov 27, 2009 7:15 pmre: 35 Inconvenient Truths > more Climategate fallout#

Ron Sam
Climategate e-mails sweep America, may scuttle Barack Obama's Cap and Trade laws


November 26th, 2009


Just a few considerations in addition to previous remarks about the explosion of the East Anglia Climategate e-mails in America. The reaction is growing exponentially there. Fox News, Barack Obama’s Nemesis, is now on the case, trampling all over Al Gore’s organic vegetable patch and breaking the White House windows. It has extracted some of the juiciest quotes from the e-mails and displayed them on-screen, with commentaries. Joe Public, coast-to-coast, now knows, thanks to the clowns at East Anglia’s CRU, just how royally he has been screwed.

Senator James Inhofe’s Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has written to all the relevant US Government agencies, acquainting them with the nature of the e-mails. But the real car crash for Obama is on Capitol Hill where it is now confidently believed his Cap and Trade climate legislation is toast. It was always problematic; but with a growing awakening to the scale of the scientific imposture sweeping the world, as far as the Antipodes, the clever money is on Cap and Trade laws failing to pass, with many legislators sceptical and the mid-term elections looming ever closer.

At the more domestic level, the proposed ban on incandescent light bulbs, so supinely accepted in this servile state of Britain, is now provoking a huge backlash in America. US citizens do not like the government coming into their houses and putting their lights out. Voters may not understand the cut and thrust of climate debate at the technical level, but they know when the Man from Washington has crossed their threshold uninvited.

The term that Fox News is now applying to the Climategate e-mails is “game-changer”. For the first time, Anthropogenic Global Warming cranks are on the defensive, losing their cool and uttering desperate mantras such as “You can be sceptical, not denial.” Gee, thanks, guys. In fact we shall be whatever we want to be, without asking your permission.

At this rate, Copenhagen is going to turn into a comedy convention with the real world laughing at these liars. Now is the time to mount massive resistance to the petty tyrants and hit them where it hurts – in the wallet. Further down the line there may be, in many countries, a question of criminal prosecution of anybody who has falsified data to secure funds and impose potentially disastrous fiscal restraints on the world in deference to a massive hoax. It’s a new world out there, Al, and, as you may have noticed, the climate is very cold indeed.



Gerald Warner
Gerald Warner is an author, broadcaster, columnist and polemical commentator who writes about politics, religion, history, culture and society in general.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100018034/climategate-%20%20e-mails-sweep-america-may-scuttle-barack-obamas-cap-and-trade-laws/

Private Reply to Ron Sam

Nov 27, 2009 7:44 pmre: re: 35 Inconvenient Truths > more Climategate fallout#

Ron Sam
Climategate: five Aussie MPs lead the way by resigning in disgust over carbon tax


Australia is leading the revolt against Al Gore's great big AGW conspiracy - just as the Aussie geologist and AGW sceptic Professor Ian Plimer predicted it would.


November 26th, 2009


Australia is leading the revolt against Al Gore’s great big AGW conspiracy – just as the Aussie geologist and AGW sceptic Professor Ian Plimer predicted it would.

ABC news reports that five frontbenchers from Australia’s opposition Liberal party have resigned their portfolios rather than follow their leader Malcolm Turnbull in voting with Kevin Rudd’s Government on a new Emissions Trading Scheme.

The Liberal Party is in turmoil with the resignations of five frontbenchers from their portfolios this afternoon in protest against the emissions trading scheme.

Tony Abbott, Sophie Mirabella, Tony Smith and Senators Nick Minchin and Eric Abetz have all quit their portfolios because they cannot vote for the legislation.

Senate whip Stephen Parry has also relinquished his position.

The ETS is Australia’s version of America’s proposed Cap and Trade and the EU’s various carbon reduction schemes: a way of taxing business on its CO2 output. As Professor Plimer pointed out when I interviewed him in the summer, this threatens to cause enormous economic damage in Australia’s industrial and mining heartlands, not least because both are massively dependent on Australia’s vast reserves of coal. It is correspondingly extremely unpopular with Aussie’s outside the pinko, libtard metropolitan fleshpots.

Though the ETS squeaked narrowly through Australia’s House of Representatives, its Senate is proving more robust – thanks not least to the widespread disgust by the many Senators who have read Professor Plimer’s book Heaven And Earth at the dishonesty and corruption of the AGW industry. If the Senate keeps rejecting the scheme, then the Australian government will be forced to dissolve.

For the rapidly increasing number of us who believe that AGW is little more than a scheme by bullying eco-fascists to deprive us of our liberty, by big government to spread its controlling tentacles into every aspect our lives, and scheming industrialists such as Al Gore to enrich themselves through carbon trading, this principled act by Australia’s Carbon Five is fantastic news.

Where they lead, the rest of the world’s politicians will eventually be forced to follow: their appalled electorates will make sure of it.



James Delingpole
James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books including Welcome To Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future And It Doesn't Work, How To Be Right, and the Coward series of WWII adventure novels. His website is www.jamesdelingpole.com




http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018003/climategate-five-aussie-mps-lead-the-way-by-resigning-in-disgust-over-carbon-tax/

Private Reply to Ron Sam

Nov 28, 2009 5:43 amre: re: 35 Inconvenient Truths > more Climategate fallout#

Thomas Holford
Ron Sam sayeth:

> The term that Fox News is now applying to the Climategate e-mails is “game-changer”.


And the term that the "pinko libtard" alphabet networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC etc) is applying is . . . ah . . . um . . .

. . . well, there IS no term.


They still haven't been able to figure out a clever way of saying that "there have been some inappropriately documented minor administrative hitches and procedural anomalies at an overseas climate lab that did some minor, insignificiant, inconsequential studies relating somehow indirectly to understanding climate change."

They are now frozen in place. Because they can't report the "Climategate e-mails", they really can't say anything at all at the moment about global warming.

They are, as those of metaphorical inclination might say, "twisting in the wind".

T. Holford

Private Reply to Thomas Holford

Nov 28, 2009 5:51 amre: re: re: 35 Inconvenient Truths > more Climategate fallout#

Thomas Holford
This just in!

> Something hot to send around:


http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzNhZGRkN2Q4ZjMzNjQzNWY5ZTY4MzhjMjAwNjIwNzU



Al Gore looks pretty snappy in an orange jump suit.



T. Holford

Private Reply to Thomas Holford

Nov 28, 2009 11:27 amRequest from John Veitch#

Ben Simonton
I am here because of an email request by John Veitch. He wrote -

"Currently on the Innovation Network the topic is Global Warming. Several members of the network, the only ones who are posting, claim that global warming is a hoax, based on falsified data, and are making many other statements that I believe are groundless.

Climate change is not an area where I have any real knowledge. For the last 30 years I've be doing other things. But I feel that untruth should be challenged.

So I'm asking, do we have any climate science expertise in the network?"

End Quote

I was taken by John's request since he admits to having no knowledge of climate change but wants someone to challenge the untruths being expressed here.

How, John, can you with no knowledge recognize truth or untruth? But I can help you.

I have spent over 30 years immersed in science of many varieties including electrical, electronic, nuclear, chemical, ocean environmental, rocketry, space, and others. I believe that I have sufficient scientific knowledge to judge this issue, particularly since I have been in a similar position on many previous issues of science.

I spent over one year assessing the so-called science of climate change. I already knew a lot about the science of our oceans, atmosphere, exoatmosphere, and weather. I quickly learned how little we really know about climate change and found a science that is barely in its infancy. But it was easy for me to understand why it is an infant and all the many variables we don't yet understand. In my humble opinion, we are years away from being able to sufficiently understand these variables and then put them together in order to formulate an hypothesis about our overall climate.

On the specific hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming, I found no science to support it. What I found was that scientific methods had not been used. By this I mean that an hypothesis had not been first subjected to tests to disprove it and if disproved then rejected and a new hypothesis made. In fact, no attempts to disprove it had been made. In addition, when scientists find an hypothesis they can't disprove, they then go about trying to prove it. If they manage to do that, they publish all of their data and findings so that other scientists can confirm their findings and determine its flaws. Everyone in that particular area of science freely shares what they learn. From all this, science proceeds. In the case of the purveyors of anthropogenic global warming, none of this had been done. In fact, the purveyors openly refused to make public all of their data, only their findings and selected data.

Why, I asked, would any respectable scientist show such disrespect for scientific methods that have proven valuable for centuries?

What I found was that the purveyors of this science were not in fact real scientists but pseudo-scientists with an agenda, in most cases a political agenda. Only then did I understand the true nature of what they were doing, trying to get us to believe a hoax.

I hope that this helps you, John, arrive at real truth. I am sorry that I cannot help you to disprove your "untruth" however you came to that conclusion.

Best regards, Ben Simonton

Private Reply to Ben Simonton

Nov 28, 2009 12:21 pmre: Request from John Veitch#

John Dierckx
Hi John,

Thank you for this update, I would have to say however that while I agree on your notion of importance, I do not agree with your reading that global warming is a hoax.

Global warming is a more popular term used for what is actually meant: climate change.

I do not think that anyone in his right mind will deny that climate is changing, and it has been for as long as one can go back. The big issue here is whether or not that is caused by mankind or not.

That is an entirely different question and that is what the discussion is about. That is probably an even more important discussion if only because that data is indeed so inconsistent and there are good indications that it is not a human caused phenomenon. Why is this an important discussion, because leaping ahead without adequate and consistent data, the 'Gorian' viewpoint has been picked up and we are feeling the consequences of that in our wallets already in the form of ETS.

THat would still not be a problem if we were indeed paying carbon taxes, extra for saving light bulbs etcetera and we were indeed 'saving out planet'. But that is exactly what is being shown time and time again: this is not proven too be a man made issue and there is evidence that we would not even be able to cause climate change as humans even if we wanted to.

So what is happening here is that governments have found a new way to tax their citizens (families and corporations alike), without there being consistent data that we should 'suffer for our carbon emissions because they are destroying our planet', and that those taxes will actually be contributing to 'saving the planet.' It would make sense to me to at least make sure that data is consistent before you start taking drastic measures, which in New Zealand could seriously jeopardize the health of our most important economic sector, the primary sector and furthermore cause severe distress amongst citizens due to these taxes potentially and as it seems more likely by the day, without a probable cause.

What it all boils down to is that predispositions can be harmful to a good discussion. It is actually not that different as with the whole creation and intelligent design as well as christian debate.New discoveries appear to be going against the grain of what we thought was true, what had become common knowledge. Our world has grown up with the 'common knowledge' that there was no creator and that the stories about about God and Jesus were nothing more than myth. We were the result of chance and without any other purpose than procreation. New evidence however seems to contradict such a viewpoint more and more often. The more we learn the more unlikely it seems to become. It is the same with the climate change debate. That hurts and causes insecurities and in the case of climate change legal, compliance and financial pressure that may well be based on false or unreliable evidence.

I guess the best approach is to go there where the evidence is taking us, whether we like that direction or not, whether it is inconvenient or not, isn't that what science is really all about? Well in the case of climate change it appears that Gore's evidence is being exposed whether we like it or not, and with that the basis for all kinds of drastic measures, national up to UN level may well be based on nothing, how inconvenient this may be, especially for those that were already calculating their profits over the backs of people, businesses and nations.

Hopefully no offense taken but this is indeed a serious topic that already affects us all in more ways than we care to think about. Let's go where the evidence is taking us and be open for unexpected surprises, whether we like them or not.

Private Reply to John Dierckx

Nov 28, 2009 2:03 pm35 Inconvenient Truths > more Climategate fallout#

Mike Fesler BizHarmony
Some food for thought:

When does an inconvenient truth become a convenient lie?

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
--Aristotle

The colossal misunderstanding of our time is the assumption that insight will work with people who are unmotivated to change. Communication does not depend on syntax, or eloquence, or rhetoric, or articulation but on the emotional context in which the message is being heard. People can only hear you when they are moving toward you, and they are not likely to when your words are pursuing them. Even the choices words lose their power when they are used to overpower. Attitudes are the real figures of speech.
Edwin H. Friedman:

Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change.
--Stephen Hawking

Don't let anybody walk through your mind with dirty feet.
--Gandhi

When you are arguing with a fool, make sure he isn't doing the same thing.
--Unknown

Some minds are like concrete, thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.--Unknown

I tried to be flexible and to have an open mind but I hurt my back picking up my brains when they kept falling out.

Blessings,
M.

Private Reply to Mike Fesler BizHarmony

Nov 28, 2009 2:29 pmre: 35 Inconvenient Truths > more Climategate fallout#

Ed and Yvonne Servis
Mike
"I tried to be flexible and to have an open mind but I hurt my back picking up my brains when they kept falling out.

Perhaps this is because the issue is a no brainer. What seems to lack in many of these conversations is a little common sense. The stakes are too high on this one to allow ones pre-determined notions or political ambitions to influence an outcome. This is especially sad when supposed scientist do it. Climate change is what it is. A theory.

Ed

Private Reply to Ed and Yvonne Servis

Nov 28, 2009 2:32 pmre: re: Request from John Veitch#

James Booth
.
I do like where this is going !


JB

Private Reply to James Booth

Nov 28, 2009 3:22 pmre: re: 35 Inconvenient Truths > more Climategate fallout#

abbeboulah
In the hullabaloo about the alleged manipulation of scientific data regarding climate change -- visible evidence of melting glaciers and polar ice caps notwithstanding, the question regarding the policies available for humanity and their consequences tends to get lost in the shuffle. Perhaps it might help to just list some basic assumptions and positions: (no claim of comprehensive coverage here)

1 Climate change is happening Y/N

2 Climate change is caused / influenced by human activity Y / N

3 Possible courses of action or policy include:
a Doing nothing
b Increasing exploitation and use of fossil fuel reserves
c Promoting R&D and use of alternative / ‘clean’ energy sources
d Reducing energy demand
e Establishing global planning / coordination entities (‘world government’)
to promote 3c or 3d (or both)
f Preventing (e), strengthening national control
g ?

4 Fervor of debaters is motivated by concerns for
a scientific truth
b profitability of industry 3b
c profitability of industry 3c
d maintaining power of groups supporting industry 3b
e increasing / maintaining power of industry 3c
f establishing powerful world government
g preventing establishment of world government / maintaining US dominance
h undermining power of Obama administration
i supporting power of Obama administration
j Fear of consequences of assumption / policies 1Y & 2Y &3a or 3b
k Fear of consequences of assumptions (any of the above)

5 Strategy and tactics available for adherents of (any) position
a Providing reliable scientific data
b Falsifying / doctoring / hiding scientific data
c Accusing opposing party of failure to do 5a
d Accusing opposing party of doing 5b
e Repeating / advertising own position incessantly to win common acceptance
f Refuting opposing position
g Asserting 'good' motivations (selection of 5) for own position
h Accusing opposing party of 'bad' motivations (5)
other than those asserted / acknowledged

Examining these options and matching them with expressed opinions on both sides might be an interesting exercise. (Looking at posts and references above and elsewhere, and note matching assumption / policies).

Without in any way making presumptions on the possible bias or preconceived notions of RyzeInnovationreaders, (which we of course just KNOW are above any such shortcomings) I am confident that the positions of ‘your’ party will clearly and convincingly emerge as the true, honest and well-intended one with a clear strategy for the best of humanity.

Private Reply to abbeboulah

Nov 28, 2009 4:14 pmre: re: re: Request from John Veitch#

Ed and Yvonne Servis
JB
"I do like where this is going !

Which is probably nowhere. Beatles even did a song about it "Nowhere Man"
Ed

Private Reply to Ed and Yvonne Servis

Nov 28, 2009 4:51 pm35 Inconvenient Truths > more Climategate fallout#

Mike Fesler BizHarmony
For me?
It has never been about the politics, or the economics.
Simply it is about truth,

Opinions and or theories are just like the nose on your face. . . . you must pick your own. ;-)
Right or wrong.

We are incapable of knowing all. . . . the mind has too much catching up to do to even approach the full understanding of that point.

It is what it is, and we must face the simple fact of the truth eventually.
We may as well know as many of the possibilities (as humanly possible), as we will never know what the exact outcome will be, this side of eternity.

To be lied too, to be manipulated, and to be purposely misdirected?
There is no amount of forgiveness to restore full credibility in the perpetrators of this lie again. They will always be held in (some level of) contempt, and be suspect in all future endeavors again.

Their loss. . . our gain.

M.

Private Reply to Mike Fesler BizHarmony

Nov 28, 2009 5:31 pmre: Request from John Veitch - assumptions and positions#

James Booth
.
1 Climate change is happening
> Yes, as it happens all the time - part of natural systems


2 Climate change is caused / influenced by human activity
> Yes, to some degree, significance of which is as yet unknown


3 Possible courses of action or policy include:
a Doing nothing
b Increasing exploitation and use of fossil fuel reserves
c Promoting R&D and use of alternative / ‘clean’ energy sources
d Reducing energy demand
e Establishing global planning / coordination entities (‘world government’)
to promote 3c or 3d (or both)
f Preventing (e), strengthening national control

g Individuals taking responsibility for their own actions
h Utilizing wider variety of resources and outlawing artificial scarcity
i Understanding (use of) any technology and / or activity has consequences
j Being prepared for change - climatic or other - for survival


4 Fervor of debaters is motivated by concerns for
a scientific truth
b profitability of industry 3b
c profitability of industry 3c
d maintaining power of groups supporting industry 3b
e increasing / maintaining power of industry 3c
f establishing powerful world government
g preventing establishment of world government / maintaining US dominance
h undermining power of Obama administration
i supporting power of Obama administration
j Fear of consequences of assumption / policies 1Y & 2Y &3a or 3b
k Fear of consequences of assumptions (any of the above)

l Concern / feeling of responsibility for those who come after us
m Taking what we need and leaving the rest


5 Strategy and tactics available for adherents of (any) position
a Providing reliable scientific data
b Falsifying / doctoring / hiding scientific data
c Accusing opposing party of failure to do 5a
d Accusing opposing party of doing 5b
e Repeating / advertising own position incessantly to win common acceptance
f Refuting opposing position
g Asserting 'good' motivations (selection of 5) for own position
h Accusing opposing party of 'bad' motivations (5)
other than those asserted / acknowledged

i Seek and disseminate facts only, with no aim to profit
j Proceed in ways which support sustainability and LIFE


.

Private Reply to James Booth

Nov 28, 2009 5:53 pmre: re: re: 35 Inconvenient Truths > more Climategate fallout#

Thomas Holford
Thorbjoern sayeth:

> In the hullabaloo about the alleged manipulation of scientific data regarding climate change -- visible evidence of melting glaciers and polar ice caps notwithstanding, the question regarding the policies available for humanity and their consequences tends to get lost in the shuffle. Perhaps it might help to just list some basic assumptions and positions: (no claim of comprehensive coverage here)

> 1 Climate change is happening Y/N

> 2 Climate change is caused / influenced by human activity Y / N


A thoughtful and promising approach, and the essence of Socratic dialogue. At least initially.

However, pursuing this approach takes enormous discipline, patience, and time.

Each proposition has to be a simple declarative statement using unamibuous, commonly understood language.

When you get into compound sentences, complex sentences, conditional modifiers, etc., all validity goes out the door. Ditto for words with contentious meanings like "social justice", "fairness", "humane", "greed", etc. etc.

It's simple, but subtle issues like these that turn a poll into a "push poll" and proves only what the pollster wants proven.

T. Holford

Private Reply to Thomas Holford

Nov 28, 2009 8:25 pmre: Request from John Veitch#

Thomas Holford
Ben Simonton sayeth:

> On the specific hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming, I found no science to support it. What I found was that scientific methods had not been used. By this I mean that an hypothesis had not been first subjected to tests to disprove it and if disproved then rejected and a new hypothesis made. In fact, no attempts to disprove it had been made. In addition, when scientists find an hypothesis they can't disprove, they then go about trying to prove it. If they manage to do that, they publish all of their data and findings so that other scientists can confirm their findings and determine its flaws. Everyone in that particular area of science freely shares what they learn. From all this, science proceeds. In the case of the purveyors of anthropogenic global warming, none of this had been done. In fact, the purveyors openly refused to make public all of their data, only their findings and selected data.

> Why, I asked, would any respectable scientist show such disrespect for scientific methods that have proven valuable for centuries?

> What I found was that the purveyors of this science were not in fact real scientists but pseudo-scientists with an agenda, in most cases a political agenda. Only then did I understand the true nature of what they were doing, trying to get us to believe a hoax.


Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. And, ditto.

The "human caused global warming" hysteria is an egregious departure from the principles and practices of the authentic scientific method.

It has grievously demeaned and debased the practice of science.

There are a lot of partisan "scientists" who have a lot of 'splainen to do.

T. Holford

Private Reply to Thomas Holford

Nov 28, 2009 9:28 pmA general response.#

Reg Charie
Theory or fact?
Real or imagined?
Religion or concept?
Caused naturally or caused by humanity?
Caused by both?

Look around.
Look at what is happening that we can measure.

Global warming? Damm right. Bigger - Stronger - Longer weather patterns.
Tropical fish migrate northwards.
South Pacific sea temperatures high. This causes intense weather cells moving the hot air to cooler climes and Vancouver Island is in the middle of this "Pineapple Express".
Unending days of rain and winds as the sudden exposure to the cooler land mass dumps large amounts of accumulated moisture.

48 - 50 degrees F (9-10C) is unusual at this time of year.

Other things. Polar ice melting.
Permafrost disappearing.
Habitats disappearing.
Greenland melting. (Want to have cause to worry? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090527121055.htm)

Greater tides. Higher Lows.

Is this a normal changed caused by (Pick one),
Normal fluctuations due in part to magnetic strength and positioning?
Wobble?
Sun's output - flares - sunspots - plasma eruptions?
Man?
Some of the above?
All of the above?

What can we do? Click all that apply.
Put your head between your knees and kiss your ass goodbye?
Whine and cry?
Complain to anyone that will listen?
Write about it to draw public opinion.
Object to what is written?
Fight to protect all the little "Kingdoms" who will be hurt if more eco friendly methods are enforced?
Switch to something greener? New led lights?
Build a self sustaining environment.
Prepare for the worst?

Anyone here read The Hab Theory?
http://www.habtheory.com/

As for what is causing this, it kinda looks like man is the virus.



21 Photoshop filters for $19.95 http://FantasticMachines.com
SEO - Open Source Website Development http://dotcom-productions.com
0Grief http://0grief.com/special_hosting_accounts_for_my_ryze_friends.htm
CRELoaded websites http://RegCharie.com - SBTT http://thinktank-network.ryze.com

Private Reply to Reg Charie

Nov 29, 2009 2:45 amre: A general response.#

Thomas Holford
Reg Charie spake and sayeth in an ominous tone of voice:

> Other things. Polar ice melting.
Permafrost disappearing.
Habitats disappearing.
Greenland melting. (Want to have cause to worry?
. . .
As for what is causing this, it kinda looks like man is the virus.



Oh, dear.

And what controlled scientific experiments can you cite that relate polar ice melting to man being "the virus"?

Or, is it you position that "we don't need no stinkin' science."

After all, polar ice melting has been occuring since the end of the last ice age, 10,000 - 15,000 years ago.

T. Holford

Private Reply to Thomas Holford

Nov 29, 2009 8:46 pmre: re: 35 Inconvient Truths - Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generatio#

Ron Sam
Nov 26, 2009
Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

By Christopher Booker

A week after my colleague James Delingpole, on his Telegraph blog, coined the term “Climategate” to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.

The reason why even the Guardian’s George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Professor Philip Jones, the CRU’s director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC’s key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely - not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.

Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.

Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.

Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the “hockey stick” were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann’s supporters, calling themselves “the Hockey Team”, and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.

The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC’s scientific elite, including not just the “Hockey Team”, such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC’s 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore’s ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself.

There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre’s blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt’s blog Watts Up With That), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws. They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.

This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones’s refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got “lost”. Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.

But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is  what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction - to lower past temperatures and to “adjust” recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand.

In each of these countries it has been possible for local scientists to compare the official temperature record with the original data on which it was supposedly based. In each case it is clear that the same trick has been played - to turn an essentially flat temperature chart into a graph which shows temperatures steadily rising. And in each case this manipulation was carried out under the influence of the CRU.

What is tragically evident from the Harry Read Me file is the picture it gives of the CRU scientists hopelessly at sea with the complex computer programmes they had devised to contort their data in the approved direction, more than once expressing their own desperation at how difficult it was to get the desired results.

The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods - not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics’ work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.

Back in 2006, when the eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre’s demolition of the “hockey stick”, he excoriated the way in which this same “tightly knit group” of academics seemed only too keen to collaborate with each other and to “peer review” each other’s papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang. In light of the latest revelations, it now seems even more evident that these men have been failing to uphold those principles which lie at the heart of genuine scientific enquiry and debate. Already one respected US climate scientist, Dr Eduardo Zorita, has called for Dr Mann and Dr Jones to be barred from any further participation in the IPCC. Even our own George Monbiot, horrified at finding how he has been betrayed by the supposed experts he has been revering and citing for so long, has called for Dr Jones to step down as head of the CRU.

The former Chancellor Lord (Nigel) Lawson, last week launching his new think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, rightly called for a proper independent inquiry into the maze of skulduggery revealed by the CRU leaks. But the inquiry mooted on Friday, possibly to be chaired by Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society - itself long a shameless propagandist for the warmist cause - is far from being what Lord Lawson had in mind. Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age. See post here. For inspiration see this UK Telegraph post below and here.


Private Reply to Ron Sam

Nov 29, 2009 9:48 pm35 Inconvenient Truths > more Climategate fallout#

John Stephen Veitch
Hello Everybody

As James Booth said, and I agree, "I do like where this is going !"

The addition of several new voices has improved the quality of the debate. There is a tendency to adopt entrenched positions, which apparently cannot be challenged.

When that position is challenged, an attack on the individual follows. (I've deleted one post.)

According to Sir Karl Popper the essence of science is that every scientific theory MUST be "falsifyable" or it's not scientific.

I'm surprised that nobody who is a strong advocate of the standard scientific practice has appeared.

My position for Ben Simonton's benefit is that I'm a conservationist for more than 50 years. Since high school when I was asked to study a running stream for a science project. The stream closest to my home, was so polluted it had no living things I could find, except tiny round thread worms in the bottom mud.

Here in New Zealand, I've witnessed the decline of our many glaciers in the Southern Alps, an unwelcome fact for all of my experience. A NZ scientist said last week, that NZ glaciers have lost 50% of their mass in the last 30 years. That's a FACT I have to deal with.

I see how willingly we have trashed the environment in the name of "economic growth", and our unwillingness first to recognise what we are doing, and secondly once there is recognition, the way we seek to find a "costless" remedy. Generally that means no effective remedy at all. Human beings have been irresponsible stewards of the Earth.

I think standard science explains well what I've seen and experienced. Even if the theory is WRONG, and it might be, it's still a theory that has not been falsified in my unscientific opinion.

The whole world environment has been transformed by the activities of people. The clear development of monocultures we call farming. The destruction of biodiversity we often call economic progress, the destruction of rivers as living systems, the pollution and over fishing of the oceans. That is self evident to anyone with eyes who chooses to see.

Given the above, it seems entirely probable that human activity is directly responsible for the increase in global temperatures, and the effects of that on the world. I think, given the position of standard scientific theory, that those who believe HUMAN activity is not responsible for global warming need to do much more to build their case.

There is a Wiki associated with this network. You can open a new page on any TOPIC discussed in the Innovation Network. The idea is to clearly lay out without endless repetition what the arguments are. YOU can join the Wiki, and you can participate in editing the same.

http://ryzeinnovation.wikispaces.com/


John Stephen Veitch; The Network Ambassador
Open Future Limited - http://www.openfuture.co.nz/
Innovation Network - http://veech-network.ryze.com/
Building an Open Future - http://openfuture-network.ryze.com/

Private Reply to John Stephen Veitch

Nov 29, 2009 10:49 pmre: 35 Inconvenient Truths > more Climategate fallout#

Ben Simonton
John,

I also am a conservationist and an environmentalist. I also have watched as we have polluted the planet. My father made me buy unleaded gas in 1950 from the only gasoline company to produce it at that time. It was much more expensive but he did not care. Unfortunately, not enough people agreed so the product was dropped though it reappeared years later.

I spent over 15 years directing the operation and maintenance of nuclear power plants on surface ships. Nuclear is the cleanest, most non-polluting and safest fuel for generating electric power the planet has every known. I can well remember how in 1966 the head of Navy nuclear, then Admiral Rickover, told us that we were to keep track of every drop of radioactive water. We thought that was an absurd goal, but knew we had best try our very best. 6 years later and a huge number of innovations, procedures, training, and modifications later we in the fleet had a achieved that goal. This even though almost all the water involved could have been consumed by anyone without harm. Protect the environment was the mantra.

In over 20 years on the ocean I watched it go from healthy fish and whales everywhere to being unhealthy with very few fish or whales. Most U.S. rivers turned into sesspools. I could go on and on.

So I know a bit about pollution. But there is no evidence to suggest that pollution caused by mankind is affecting our climate or melting your glaciers. Glaciers have been melting and growing alternately forever.

You wrote - "I think standard science explains well what I've seen and experienced. Even if the theory is WRONG, and it might be, it's still a theory that has not been falsified in my unscientific opinion."

How you could come to such conclusions defies understanding. What do you know of "standard science" and its comparison to climatology? And given that display of complete ignorance, you surely don't have the knowledge to decide that no falsification has occurred.

When I did my review, it was obvious to me that the famed hockey stick was a deliberate falsification at worst, sheer ignorance about how to make a model at best.

You surprise me, John, as I had expected more intellectual integrity from you. I admit it is hard to achieve these days.

But time solves all things and proof of falsification appears to be emerging through many, many newly disclosed emails. So we probably won't have to concern ourselves with that issue anymore.

Best regards, Ben

Private Reply to Ben Simonton

Nov 30, 2009 1:35 amre: re: 35 Inconvenient Truths > more Climategate fallout#

Reg Charie
Ron, that kind of reporting is nothing more than fear mongering.
It does nothing but allude to half truths and is mostly fiction.
Increases in base temperatures are discovered as input data grows. You call updating "manipulation".

I am certain that from any viewpoint higher temperatures being recorded are not what is "desired".

One has to have a certain level of anxiety at the sheer numbers of the levels of pollution we expect the earth to assimilate.

I have sailed through miles of plastic in the Sargasso Sea.
I can watch our glacier get smaller every year.
Our mountains used to get 20 feet of snow mid mountain. Last year it was 10.

Do I need science to tell me that man is having an effect on his environment?
Only in the measurements. Cold areas are getting warmer. Arctic and Antarctic ice is disappearing.
Sea temperatures are increasing.
I am experiencing the effects of that right now. "Pineapple Express" winds have raised temperatures to 50F at 5:00 PM and caused some very high winds.
Common sense should be enough to answer in the affirmative.

But according to you this is all caused by natural methods and we, as a result, should not worry about polluting our ecosystem.

We should not worry that polar ice is freshwater and can change the salinity and thus the course of the oceans currents like the Gulf Stream which keeps England and Western Europe (especially Northern Europe) warmer

"Burning of fossil fuel is good for the environment" and "The world is flat." (http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200611CO2globalwarming.html)
You can ignore or attempt to diminish the results.
Fine by me.
However I will prepare for the unforeseen precipitated in result of "stronger - longer - harder" weather patterns.





21 Photoshop filters for $19.95 http://FantasticMachines.com
SEO - Open Source Website Development http://dotcom-productions.com
0Grief http://0grief.com/special_hosting_accounts_for_my_ryze_friends.htm
CRELoaded websites http://RegCharie.com - SBTT http://thinktank-network.ryze.com

Private Reply to Reg Charie

Nov 30, 2009 1:52 amre: 35 Inconvenient Truths > more Climategate fallout#

Reg Charie
>>When that position is challenged, an attack on the individual follows. (I've deleted one post.)

Why delete them?
We are all adults that can put up with people that cannot deal with the facts.

Besides, they show more of the person behind the posts.

21 Photoshop filters for $19.95 http://FantasticMachines.com
SEO - Open Source Website Development http://dotcom-productions.com
0Grief http://0grief.com/special_hosting_accounts_for_my_ryze_friends.htm
CRELoaded websites http://RegCharie.com - SBTT http://thinktank-network.ryze.com

Private Reply to Reg Charie

Nov 30, 2009 2:11 amre: 35 Inconvenient Truths > more Climategate fallout#

Thomas Holford
John Stephen Veitch sayeth:

> I'm surprised that nobody who is a strong advocate of the standard scientific practice has appeared.


Good grief, John!

You haven't been paying attention.

I AM A STRONG ADVOCATE OF STANDARD SCIENTIFIC PRACTICE!!!!


A PowerPoint presentation full of errors is NOT STANDARD SCIENTIFIC PRACTICE.

A disprovable hypothesis and controlled experiments ARE standard scientific practice.

There have been NO controlled experiments which show that human activity is the prodominant cause of global warming.

The warming quack excuse for this is that it's too hard to do, so they are going to do Garbage-In-Garbage-Out computer models instead.

COMPUTER MODELS ARE NOT EXPERIMENTS!!!!!

T. Holford

Private Reply to Thomas Holford

Nov 30, 2009 3:10 amre: re: 35 Inconvenient Truths > more Climategate fallout#

Thomas Holford
Reg Charie sayeth:

> Why delete them?
> We are all adults that can put up with people that cannot deal with the facts.


Well, apparently if you are a global warming climate quack, you CAN'T deal with the facts. THAT'S why you delete them.

- - - - - -

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

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.

- - - -

I don't think I have ever heard of a case where an authentic scientist has justified deleting raw data that supported his published research.

A. Scientists make mistakes, and it is necessary to check and recheck calculations from the source data.

B. The fundamental principles of science require that phenomena be reproducible in order to be validated by science.

If raw data is deleted, it is IMPOSSIBLE to SCIENTIFICALLY validate it.

T. Holford


Private Reply to Thomas Holford

Nov 30, 2009 3:41 am35 Inconvenient Truths > more Climategate fallout#

Mike Fesler BizHarmony
I resent the usage of the word QUACK.

As i find it extremely degrading to ducks to be associated with such low lifes.

M.

Private Reply to Mike Fesler BizHarmony

Dec 01, 2009 2:31 amre: re: re: 35 Inconvenient Truths > more Climategate fallout#

Ron Sam
Reg - Anartic

In the below reporting of Antarctic Ice
It's your chance.  Make a peep


We've never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance. #  

Claiming to save the planet is no excuse for scientific fraud

Comparing to Pharma fraud


Where it makes even more sense to me is in future taxes.

The Huge Mistake - Climate Change Solutions 2009



Ron

October 6, 2009

Antarctic Ice Melt at Lowest Levels in Satellite Era

Where are the headlines? Where are the press releases? Where is all the attention?

The ice melt across during the Antarctic summer (October-January) of 2008-2009 was the lowest ever recorded in the satellite history.

Such was the finding reported last week by Marco Tedesco and Andrew Monaghan in the journal Geophysical Research Letters:

A 30-year minimum Antarctic snowmelt record occurred during austral summer 2008-2009 according to spaceborne microwave observations for 1980-2009. Strong positive phases of both the El-Nińo Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode (SAM) were recorded during the months leading up to and including the 2008-2009 melt season.


Figure 1. Standardized values of the Antarctic snow melt index (October-January) from 1980-2009 (adapted from Tedesco and Monaghan, 2009).

The silence surrounding this publication was deafening.

It would seem that with oft-stoked fears of a disastrous sea level rise coming this century any news that perhaps some signs may not be pointing to its imminent arrival would be greeted by a huge sigh of relief from all inhabitants of earth (not only the low-lying ones, but also the high-living ones, respectively under threat from rising seas or rising energy costs).

But not a peep.

But such is not always the case--or rather, such is not ever the case when ice melt is pushing the other end of the record scale.

For instance, below is a collection of NASA stories highlighting record high amounts of melting (or in most cases, simply higher than normal amounts in some regions) across Greenland in each of the past 3 years, as ascertained by Marco Tedesco (the lead author of the latest report on Antarctica):

NASA Researcher Finds Days of Snow Melting on the Rise in Greenland

"In 2006, Greenland experienced more days of melting snow and at higher altitudes than average over the past 18 years, according to a new NASA-funded project using satellite observations...."

NASA Finds Greenland Snow Melting Hit Record High in High Places

"A new NASA-supported study reports that 2007 marked an overall rise in the melting trend over the entire Greenland ice sheet and, remarkably, melting in high-altitude areas was greater than ever at 150 percent more than average. In fact, the amount of snow that has melted this year over Greenland is the equivalent of more than twice the surface size of the U.S..."

Melting on the Greenland Ice Cap, 2008

"The northern fringes of Greenland's ice sheet experienced extreme melting in 2008, according to NASA scientist Marco Tedesco and his colleagues."

And lest you think that perhaps NASA hasn't had any data on ice melt across Antarctica in past years, we give you this one:

NASA Researchers Find Snowmelt in Antarctica Creeping Inland

"On the world's coldest continent of Antarctica, the landscape is so vast and varied that only satellites can fully capture the extent of changes in the snow melting across its valleys, mountains, glaciers and ice shelves. In a new NASA study, researchers [including Marco Tedesco] using 20 years of data from space-based sensors have confirmed that Antarctic snow is melting farther inland from the coast over time, melting at higher altitudes than ever and increasingly melting on Antarctica's largest ice shelf."

But this time around, nothing, nada, zippo from NASA when their ice melt go-to guy Marco Tedesco reports that Antarctica has set a record for the lack of surface ice melt (even more interestingly coming on the heels of a near-record low ice-melt year last summer).

So, seriously, NASA, what gives? If ice melt is an important enough topic to warrant annual updates of the goings-on across Greenland, it is not important enough to elucidate the history and recent behavior across Antarctica?

(These are not meant as rhetorical questions)

Reference

Tedesco M., and A. J. Monaghan, 2009. An updated Antarctic melt record through 2009 and its linkages to high-latitude and tropical climate variability. Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L18502, doi:10.1029/2009GL039186.


Private Reply to Ron Sam

Dec 02, 2009 10:43 pmre: 35 Inconvenient Truths > Australia's Parliament defeats global warming bill#

Ron Sam
Australia's Parliament defeats global warming bill

By ROHAN SULLIVAN,AP | Dec 2, 2:45 am ET



SYDNEY - Australia's plans for an emissions trading system to combat global warming were scuttled Wednesday in Parliament, handing a defeat to a government that had hoped to set an example at international climate change talks next week.


The Senate, where Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's government does not hold a majority, rejected his administration's proposal for Australia to become one of the first countries to install a so-called cap-and-trade system to slash the amount of heat-trapping pollution that industries pump into the air.


The 41-33 vote followed a tumultuous debate in which the conservative main opposition party at first agreed to support a version of the government's bill, then dramatically dumped its leader and switched sides after bitter divisions erupted within the party.

The new leader, Tony Abbott, said Australia should not adopt an emissions trading system before the rest of the world.

"The right time, if ever, to have an ETS is if and when it becomes part of the international trading system and that is not going to happen prior to its adoption in America," he told reporters after the vote.

Rudd had wanted the legislation passed before he attends next week's U.N. summit on climate change in Copenhagen so he could portray Australia as a world leader on the issue. He discussed the issue with President Barack Obama this week during a visit to the White House from which he was still returning Wednesday.

The defeat of the Australian plan could influence the views of some delegates to the Copenhagen meetings, adding weight to the argument that developed nations should curb their emissions before poorer nations are required to tackle theirs, said Frank Jotzo, an Australian National University expert on international climate change negotiations.

"It's not like the talks will stall because of the lack of an Australian emissions trading scheme in place," he said. "But if the legislation had been passed that would have sent a very positive signal internationally and in particular to developing countries."

Acting Prime Minister Julia Gillard said the government would reintroduce the bill in February to give the opposition a last chance to overcome its divisions and support the plan.

If the bill is defeated again, Rudd could use that as a reason to call early elections. Elections are due by late 2010 anyway.

Australia is a small greenhouse gas polluter in global terms, but one of the worst per capita because it relies heavily for its electricity on its abundant reserves of coal. As the driest continent after Antarctica, it is also considered one of the most vulnerable countries to climate change.

The European Union has a carbon trading system, as do some U.S. states. Canada and New Zealand are among countries considering or in the process of implementing them.

Under the government's plan, an annual limit would be placed on the amount of greenhouse gases allowed to be pumped into the atmosphere and permits would be issued to regulate that ceiling. The permits could be bought and sold, setting up a market system that would make reducing emissions potentially profitable for polluting companies.

Opponents of the legislation say it amounts to a huge new tax on polluting industries such as power generators, which would put a crimp on the economy and lead to higher prices for consumers.

Climate Change Minister Sen. Penny Wong accused the opposition members who voted the bill down of being climate change deniers out of step with the world.

"This is about doing our bit as part of a global agreement, this is about responding to what is a global challenge," Wong said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091202/ap_on_re_as/climate_australia

Private Reply to Ron Sam

Dec 02, 2009 11:19 pmre: re: 35 Inconvenient Truths > Australia's Parliament defeats global warming bill#

Reg Charie
Congratulations.
You can continue to pollute without shame or hesitation.

And you are PROUD of this?



21 Photoshop filters for $19.95 http://FantasticMachines.com
SEO - Open Source Website Development http://dotcom-productions.com
0Grief http://0grief.com/special_hosting_accounts_for_my_ryze_friends.htm
CRELoaded websites http://RegCharie.com - SBTT http://thinktank-network.ryze.com

Private Reply to Reg Charie

Dec 03, 2009 12:11 amre: 35 Inconvenient Truths > substantive ?#

Ron Sam
Yes. Thank you.

This is history being made. Not pollution as your understanding goes...


History will find this true:
When some can't get their theories made believable they change the FACTS.

Whereas, they should change their theories and leave the FACTS whole.







I'll be really happy to see the Copenhagen meeting scuttled.
The UN does not need to be enabled by any GW treaty.
Cap and Tax is being challenged in Congress and will probably loose ground. Too, Too bad.

If anything I would like to see hypocrite's, yes HYPOCRITE'S, like Al Gore get taxed at the highest levels and with no tax breaks. His NP taken away for fraud. The internet scrubbed of his lies (as well as Obama scrubbing the internet of his actual birth information).

A guy that 'walks the walk' in my book of being green is Ed Begley Jr.

The two are totally opposite in real life.



Proud without shame or hesitation,
Ron

Private Reply to Ron Sam

Dec 03, 2009 12:50 amre: re: 35 Inconvenient Truths > Australia's Parliament defeats global warming bill#

John Stephen Veitch
In Australia the Liberals are united by one idea. They are against any NEW TAXES. Carbon Taxes are new taxes. Cap and trade is a "disguised tax" so that's out too.

Not surprisingly Australian conservative politicians want lower taxes.

I've just been watching the YouTube video "Climate Chains" and it minces the truth, and I just stopped watching about half way through. Marlo Lewis Jr. says "There are three things you need to know about Cap and Trade, it's a tax, it's a tax, it's a tax.

I'm much more at home talking economics than science. PRICES. Real prices are the secret to "free markets". If the government price setting or artificial price setting arrangements like monopoly pricing or cartel pricing, is eliminated from the market by free trade in free markets, economic incentives will promote more efficient use of existing resources.

This is the economic reason for eliminating ALL trade tariffs, and ALL subsidies to trade and industry. Sadly, it's a basic economic lesson the USA and the European Union don't want to learn. (Subsidies to agriculture being a particular problem.)

New Zealand VERY FOOLISHLY eliminated all subsidies and virtually all tariffs about 30 years ago now. Boy oh boy, it was painful, we LOST 20 years of economic growth compared with Australia, where they decided to be USA light, rather than NZ 100% pure.

We did transform the country. All those NZ sheep you expect from old photos are largely gone. The economy has been transformed. The lesson here is that real economic forces (prices and competition) are VERY POWERFUL but they still take time to do their magic.

EVERYWHERE there are people who want the PAIN of that pressure to go away. Business is the most powerful lobby asking for an easy ride with guaranteed markets and guaranteed profits. For at least 20 years the standard answer in NZ was "NO, go away". (Slightly less so today.)

We have a "global warming problem" for two basic reasons. One is destruction of world soils and forests, by long standing human misuse of the land. Two is the pollution that is the by-product of industrial production, and the use of modern machinery and tools.

In both cases, the PRICE of the destructive action, soil erosion or CO2 emissions as two examples are not borne by the people who caused the problem. The cost to the community or to the environment is missing from the PRICE of the activity.

This is what they sometimes call market failure, when I was learning economics, we called it the "externality problem". The classic story is the "Tragedy of the Common" which you all know. In the USA the real story is often misunderstood. It's not that everything must be in private ownership to be protected. If things (land, waterways, oceans, fresh air) are in common ownership, without proper rules and regulation, destruction of the resource is certain, since abuse of the resource carries no penalty for the user.

Sometimes externality problems can be fixed by regulations, sometimes by changes in ownership structures, sometimes by creating fees or taxes.

I recognise that Cap and Trade has control problems, but if that could be made to work WITHOUT a lot of political hand outs that take way the PAIN, they will be enormously effective in a very short time. When people have acid on their tail it's amazing what they can achieve. So that's where I'd like the world to go.

Carbon Taxes, are a blunter, more crude instrument. If the price of coal is too cheap, so that the move to renewable energy sources is slower than desired, a CO2 tax would be one way to fix that.

Since the AIR is a common resource, common to the whole world, it's a prime example of an unregulated common. Not quite perhaps because there will be local regulation about smoke stacks for instance. Mostly, that regulation says "build a high chimney" so the pollution doesn't fall on our town. Or build it "over there" so the prevailing wind takes if "away". We are now finding our that there is no place called "away" that isn't in the end right back in your back yard.

So let's grow up and get real. There is a problem with the common we call the global atmosphere. We need worldwide regulation to solve that problem. Use of the atmosphere as a sink for all our emissions cannot be FREE, there must be both regulation on emissions and prices on the more undesirable emissions. Those regulations and prices should ideally be common across the world. No exceptions and no excuses.

In the real world it won't be like that. In 1994 there was a world environmental conference. An 800 page document called "Agenda 21" was published, where the problems we are now facing were identified and pledges were made to "Save the Planet". 15 years later, not much has happened, so I guess Copenhagen 2009 will be another step towards doing more of nothing at all. That will please some readers here.

You won't be alive to see the world population plunge from 8 billion to 3 billion inside 10 years, but I'm sure that's where we are heading.

John Stephen Veitch; The Network Ambassador
Open Future Limited - http://www.openfuture.co.nz/
Innovation Network - http://veech-network.ryze.com/
Building an Open Future - http://openfuture-network.ryze.com/

Private Reply to John Stephen Veitch

Dec 03, 2009 1:10 amre: re: 35 Inconvenient Truths > substantive ?#

Ed and Yvonne Servis
I read a lot here on environmentalists. Here is my unscientific observation on environmentalists who want to save the planet.
Try to build a nuclear power plant. Guess who stops it
Try to build a windmill. Guess who stops that
Try to build a dam. Oh well. There they are again
How about a wind mill. Nope, can't do that either
Maybe drill for natural gas. That would cut down emissions. Hell no to that one.
How about cutting fire roads and thinning out some trees to reduce wildfires? Nope, can't do that either.
So I say it is the environmentalist that are stalling and stopping any of these PRACTICAL measures to improve the environment.
One other thought. Has anyone ever given any thought that it may be what goes on beneath the Earths surface that is raising ocean temperatures in some areas and not others?
John, is New Zealand an island formed by volcanic activity?
What seems to be lacking is a little common sense on the subject. Being a poor dumb hillbilly some of this stuff is way over my head, and then sometimes it's just not worth discussing because it is like trying to reason with a rock. I think I understand what my friend JB meant when he said "I like where this is going" And hear we are
Ed

Private Reply to Ed and Yvonne Servis

Dec 03, 2009 2:29 amre: re: re: 35 Inconvenient Truths > Australia's Parliament defeats global warming bill#

Thomas Holford
John Stephen Veitch sayeth:

> Sometimes externality problems can be fixed by regulations, sometimes by changes in ownership structures, sometimes by creating fees or taxes.


The question which you fail to address is:

"Which of the six billion human beings on the planet gets the privilige of sitting at the planetary control panel and deciding what phenomena are "externality problems", and which of the buttons on the planetary control panel needs to be pressed to "solve" the externality problem?"

The government can't even put labels on endangered desert tortoises without screwing up the project and killing the poor hapless critters!

Humanity would be completely insane and DESERVE extinction if it were ever so foolish as to implement centralized bureaucratic control the human ecology and the environment.

INDIVIDUAL human beings are born with the instinct for survival, and will find a way to survive, and if necessary, adapt.

BUREACRACIES are born to effectively achieve ONE OBJECTIVE, and everything else is an OBSTACLE. The way bureaucracies deal with obstacles is to crush them.

T. Holford

Private Reply to Thomas Holford

Dec 03, 2009 3:00 amre: re: re: 35 Inconvenient Truths > Australia's Parliament defeats global warming bill#

Thomas Holford
John Stephen Veitch sayeth:

"You won't be alive to see the world population plunge from 8 billion to 3 billion inside 10 years, but I'm sure that's where we are heading."


This is a circumspect way of acknowledging what the eco-fringe really believes: there are TOO MANY HUMAN BEINGS ON EARTH!

I am always astonished that seemingly intelligent people who profess to be "humane" and "ethical" never seem to recognize or articulate the implications of their beliefs.

If there are too many people, some of them need to go away "for the good of humanity".

If some people have to go away, it really doesn't make any difference from an ecological perspective WHO goes away.

There are people have have always been blamed or implicated in humanity's problems: Jews, blacks, whites, Germans, etc, etc.

A book written in the eve of World War II entitled "Germany Must Perish" rationalized the the sterilization and extermination of all Germans.

So, why NOT just get rid of all Jews, or all "white supremacists", all infidels, or all "primitive races"?

If there are 8 billion people on the planet, but 5 billion of them are "unnecessary" and 3 billion of them are worth keeping around, I'm wondering if you include yourself among the 5 billion or the 3 billion.

And if you are among the 5 billion, you and your carbon footprint are an insupportable burden for the rest of us. The most ethical course would be to make you "go away" sooner rather than later, so we can solve the "externality problems" sooner rather than later.

T. Holford

Private Reply to Thomas Holford

Dec 03, 2009 3:01 amre: re: re: 35 Inconvenient Truths > Green Copenhagen has limits#

Ron Sam
I went to Copenhagen and other Scandinavian capitals this past September. In Copenhagen I found the water to be sweeter tasting and with more healthful minerals. I could feel the difference in energy levels after just 6-days there. The air was clean as could be, the forest as lush and green as could be. The granite mantle cracked by temperature flux led to new waterways in the north. You couldn't ask for a better place to live. It's been touted as, "the happiest place in the world...". Forbes places it high on the best place to have a business http://3.ly/SsC
Yet Denmark is #30 on the World GDP per Capita list http://3.ly/596

While staying in the Nyhavn area and walking or riding in cabs to other places in Copenhagen you would not see many other races other than Nordic, nor would you see many homeless panhandling for money or food. I only ran into one in the week I was there and he looked like he came from Christiania a hippie town across the harbor. I saw only one Muslim woman in a bourka but i think she was from India and was connected to the Indian restaurant near there.

As a tourist you notice the higher cost and more taxes on everything and anything from taking a piss to drinking a bottle of water. I spoke to a native school teacher who was attending with her retiring teacher of 40 years in the education arena. She was to get a viewing with the Queen at the Christianborg Castle to be decorated and praised and then she get to live on her retirement from the government. It's a constitutional monarchy there. I thought that the retiring teacher should be able to get the audience of her comrades and friends, but that was not the case. We all stood outside the castle watching the Royal Guards march back and forth and a Bentley drive into the castle to I guess pick up the Queen and take her back to her other castle where she lives.

When I spoke to the non-retiring teacher about immigration into the country, she said that it was very doubtful even if you have a means of making money and paying the high taxes. I said I saw two Asian families that co-own a restaurant and have kids that go to the local schools and know how to speak Danish, English and Chinese and are only 12 to 16 years old. She said that that maybe true but the government does have its limitations.

I looked up the tax on pay in the Danish Embassy site and found that some type of workers are more welcomed than others. For instance a medical researcher with 40 years of experience coming from China might be able to earn $22k a year after taxes and living accommodations.

While a carpenter with only 10 years experience will earn $28k after taxes and accommodations.

Taxes on pay are high - 63% for the highest levels, but then I spoke to a guy working in a hamburger place and they get paid around 20/hr but only get half of it. more info here http://3.ly/Fv6

However there are population limits. Denmark's population is capped off at ~5 million with Copenhagen having about 1.5 million. Only less than 10% of the population are immigrants and most of them are from other Scandinavian countries. Compared to Los Angeles County which has about 9.8 million and growing.

I think this is the basis for quality of living being kept at the level it is and that is by keeping the density level low because environmentally over usage leads to more pollution to take care of. Multi-culturalism does not make for happiness there.

Private Reply to Ron Sam

Dec 03, 2009 3:18 am35 Inconvenient Truths > Green Copenhagen has limits#

Mike Fesler BizHarmony
Two words.

Soylent Green

M.

Private Reply to Mike Fesler BizHarmony

Dec 03, 2009 3:46 amre: re: re: re: 35 Inconvenient Truths > Green Copenhagen has limits#

John Stephen Veitch
The more you have to say Ron the more I like you and the less sense your argument makes. I think you are really on my side but you have not realised it yet.

This is interesting.
The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ&feature=channel

Let's make the best use of Copenhagen we can.

John Stephen Veitch; The Network Ambassador
Open Future Limited - http://www.openfuture.co.nz/
Innovation Network - http://veech-network.ryze.com/
Building an Open Future - http://openfuture-network.ryze.com/

Private Reply to John Stephen Veitch

Dec 03, 2009 5:00 amre: re: re: re: re: 35 Inconvenient Truths > Green Copenhagen has limits#

John Stephen Veitch
Dr. Albert A. Bartlett's presentation on "Arithmetic, Population, and Energy."

This is a long presentation. Bartlett proposes that population IS the problem. He's assuming of course that Americans want to live like Americans are used to living.

There is an option that Americans might live like the people of India or Brazil or course and then maybe population is less of a problem. Do you want to choose?

Not choosing is a choice. That's the choice already being made. DO NOTHING, take no responsibility, and that's fine, nature will decide for you, is already deciding for you. Population growth will stop, and if there are too many people the population will decline.

In Part Two of the video, Bartlett explains the arithmetic of population growth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb3JI8F9LQQ

In Part Three he explains what happens when we have growth on a finite environment. In the beginning, nothing seems to be happening. Then there is noticeable change, and suddenly there's a catastrophe. And it's only simple arithmetic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFyOw9IgtjY&feature=related

I'm thinking we are seeing exactly that now with ice cap melting and increases in sea temperatures. We are told it takes hundreds of years to warm the sea, but sea temperature rises of 5 degrees are reported in Queensland, in the Pacific Islands, in Greenland and in Japan.

One of the scientists Ron Sam referred us to said that CO2 increases FOLLOWED temperature rises on earth. His theory was, the sun raised the temperature, this enabled more plant growth and that increased the CO2 levels and this process took 800 YEARS. CO2 follows increases in temperature with a LAG of 800 years. That's NOT what we are now seeing.

So we do know some things.
We know that world population growth will stop.

We know that if we don't stop it ourselves some other force will choose a way to force stoppage upon us.

Personally I'm in favour of taking responsibility and finding ways to stop population growth ourselves.
Innovation, that's what we need.

Now to the environment. If we choose to look after the environment, we are rich in ways that money can't measure. If I live in a rich environment I don't need much cash income to live. If I live in a depleted environment, I may be able to buy "life" or even to live in luxury, but my future cannot be assured. The economy exists INSIDE the environmental envelop not outside or beyond it.

Environmental protection sustains the economy. But if we ignore that idea, we continue to destroy forests and rivers and fisheries and air quality, and if our activities contribute to global warming, at some stage the things we need to keep the money going around no longer exist at affordable prices.

What happens then? The GNP starts to fall, and keeps falling, probably for a long time. Once again, if we CHOOSE to take control we are much better placed to deal with this problem. If we wait until the issue is forced upon us, it will be much worse.

Thomas thinks that individuals can protect themselves. Thomas, in our civilization we've invented politics as a way of debating ideas and making collective decisions. We thought we had something called democracy to ensure that the will of the people would be listened too. In the USA at least that's gone. In Europe and Scandinavia and in New Zealand, the will of the people still means something. Our politicians are frightened of the ballot box. So here in NZ, while we too have conservative politicians in power, who would rather do nothing, that's not an option for our government, and they know it.

I'm trying to protect myself. This nation is trying to protect itself. I'm sure Australians will eventually come to their senses and take the same decision.

So what about the USA?


John Stephen Veitch; The Network Ambassador
Open Future Limited - http://www.openfuture.co.nz/
Innovation Network - http://veech-network.ryze.com/
Building an Open Future - http://openfuture-network.ryze.com/

Private Reply to John Stephen Veitch

Dec 03, 2009 6:13 amre: re: re: re: re: re: 35 Inconvenient Truths > Green Copenhagen has limits#

Thomas Holford
John Stephen Veitch sayeth:


> I'm thinking we are seeing exactly that now with ice cap melting and increases in sea temperatures.

John:

I and many others have addressed this point before, and on multiple occasions.

Yet, it does not seem to register. It seems to be an indigestible piece of data. It is a part of the external objective reality that is filtered out of your consciousness.

POINT: The earth is in a "post-glacial period" owing to the ending of the last ice age 10,000 - 15,000 years ago.

The earths temperatures are rising. The sea level is rising. Sea levels have risen an estimated 200 to 300 feet.

Ocean temperatures are rising.

The rising temperatures and melting ice caps in a post-glacial period are NATURAL PHENOMENA. They have happened before. They will happen again.

A U.N. climate treaty will have NOTHING -- zilch, zero, nil, nada -- NOTHING to do with stopping the ice cap melting.

A belief that the U.N. WILL affect this is pure solipsism. It is a belief that is INSIDE OF YOUR HEAD, and inside of the heads of the solipsists of the U.N.

The U.N. is NOT a scientific organization; it is a POLITICAL organization. A belief that human activity causes melting ice caps and warming seas is a POLITICAL belief and NOT a SCIENTIFIC belief.

T. Holford

Private Reply to Thomas Holford

Dec 03, 2009 2:47 pmre: re: re: re: re: re: re: 35 Inconvenient Truths > Green Copenhagen has limits#

Ed and Yvonne Servis
Please read
I heard on a news report several years back about indian artifacts being exposed by a receeding glacier. How could that be? Doen't that mean the glaciers have been moving forward and backwars for a long time.
I never heard of this again but I thought I would see if I could find some archaelogical information that would tie into this global warming debate. I did find something relevent to this discussion at this link.
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/ArchaeologyMag.htm
I doubt if this will change the minds of any global warming alarmist, but this information is based in facts and evidence and not predetermined conclusions.
Ed

Private Reply to Ed and Yvonne Servis

Dec 03, 2009 6:30 pmre: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: 35 Inconvenient Truths > Green Copenhagen has limits#

Thomas Holford
Ed and Yvonne Servis sayeth:

> I heard on a news report several years back about indian artifacts being exposed by a receeding glacier. How could that be? Doen't that mean the glaciers have been moving forward and backwars for a long time.
I never heard of this again but I thought I would see if I could find some archaelogical information that would tie into this global warming debate.

It is a geological fact that their have been many periods of "glaciation" or "ice ages". That last ice age lasted from about 100,000 years ago to about 10,000 years ago. Up to one third of the earth's land mass was covered in ice and snow.

Because so much of the earths water was locked up in glaciers, the sea levels were about 200 to 300 feet lower than they are today.

There are many, many pre-modern ruins of cities that are underwater. I have heard or read stories of ancient ruins being found on the bottom of the North Sea, the Black Sea, and along coastal areas of the Mediterranean Sea.

The famous mummified remains of an ancient hunter, nicknamed Otzi, who was found in the Swiss-Italian Alps, dates from about 5,000 years ago. His death occurred when the glaciers from the last ice age were receding.

http://www.crystalinks.com/oetzi.html

According to the warming quack version of history, though, the ice ages really only ended in the mid-eighteen hundreds when mankind initiated an "industrial revolution" and started burning massive amounts of fossil fuels.

So, between about eighteen fifty and today, the sea levels rose about 250 feet. Before eighteen fifty, there were land bridges between Spain and North Africa, between Italy and Sicily, between Alaska and Siberia, and between Florida and Cuba.

T. Holford

Private Reply to Thomas Holford

Dec 03, 2009 8:33 pmre: re: re: re: re: re: re: 35 Inconvenient Truths > Green Copenhagen has limits#

Reg Charie

Thomas Said:

The earth is in a "post-glacial period"

Look at it a little closer:

Notice how the curve levels off as the earth reaches an equilibrium?
Whatever reasons caused the increase are cancelling out.

Look at the Little Ice Age.
Do you think that man could be having an effect on turning it around?

Things ARE warming up but if you think this is all a natural cause and effect and that man does not have an effect, you are just burying your head in the sand.

How can you think this? Do you not have eyes?
Do you not have a brain?

Have you never seen notice of beaches being closed due to pollution?
Have you ever flown over a city on the water and seen how far it's polluted influence extends out into the water? Have you not noticed how it is hard to get some previously abundant fish dinners because of over fishing?

Have you ever walked a once pristine beach now littered with cruise ship effluent?

The earth is a closed system being fed by solar power.
Change the transmission of the sun's power and you effect the stability of the environment.

Reduce the balance between elements by deforestation, pollution, or over use and this is transmitted to the whole.
Look at the hole in the Ozone, primarily caused by human-produced compounds that release chlorine and bromine gases in the stratosphere.
It is said that this is helping Antarctica resist global warming.

I have watched as man's pollution has reached greater and greater proportions.
I don't need some evangelist with his own agenda to tell me we are having a negative effect on our environment.
I don't need any self proclaimed experts telling me that it is all natural and "don't worry - be happy".

As a child I could lie in my Park Ex backyard in Montreal and watch the stars.
As a teenager in the same yard most of the stars were gone due to the increase in light pollution.
As an adult I could not even find the yard, the neighborhood converted from single family homes and duplexes to unending apartment buildings. There are few yards left. Hundreds of thousands of trees gone and numerous square miles of lawn are now home to 35,000 people living in only 1.6 square kilometers.

IMO they should tax the crap out of polluters.
Force them out of business if they won't meet "green" standards.
Set tough green standards.



21 Photoshop filters for $19.95 http://FantasticMachines.com
SEO - Open Source Website Development http://dotcom-productions.com
0Grief http://0grief.com/special_hosting_accounts_for_my_ryze_friends.htm
CRELoaded websites http://RegCharie.com - SBTT http://thinktank-network.ryze.com

Private Reply to Reg Charie

Dec 05, 2009 2:32 amre: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: 35 Inconvenient Truths > Green Copenhagen has limits#

Thomas Holford
Reg Charie sayeth:

> The earth is in a "post-glacial period"


> Look at it a little closer:


Looks to me like your graph shows that the earth is in a "post-glacial period".


> Notice how the curve levels off as the earth reaches an equilibrium?
> Whatever reasons caused the increase are cancelling out.


What is the point you're trying to make?

The earth's climate is a dynamic system. Dynamic systems oscillate. Oscillating systems have maxima and minima for many, many possible reasons.

If you think this is PROOF of human caused global warming, heaven help you. This is pure and simple "confirmation bias". You have a belief and you select only the evidence that confirms your belief.

"To a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail".

> Look at the Little Ice Age.
> Do you think that man could be having an effect on turning it around?

Your chart is illegible. The shape of the chart looks like some variation of somebody's temperature time series. If it's based on the East Anglia University CRU temperature data (which it probably is), forget about it.

The fraudsters at East Anglia admit that they have "filtered" the data and "filled in" missing data. They have also deleted the original raw data so no one can check on the validity of the "filtering" or data manipulation.

In other words, it has ZERO scientific validity.


> Things ARE warming up but if you think this is all a natural cause and effect and that man does not have an effect, you are just burying your head in the sand.


No. Things are NOT warming up. Temperatures have been declining for twenty years.

> How can you think this? Do you not have eyes?
Do you not have a brain?

Eyes: yes.

Brain: yes.

> Have you never seen notice of beaches being closed due to pollution?

Blame pollution. Nothing to do with human caused global warming.

> Have you ever flown over a city on the water and seen how far it's polluted influence extends out into the water?

Blame pollution. Nothing to do with human caused global warming.

> Have you not noticed how it is hard to get some previously abundant fish dinners because of over fishing?

Blame overfishing. Nothing to do with human caused global warming.

> Have you ever walked a once pristine beach now littered with cruise ship effluent?

Blame cruise ships. Nothing to do with human caused global warming.

> As a child I could lie in my Park Ex backyard in Montreal and watch the stars.
> As a teenager in the same yard most of the stars were gone due to the increase in light pollution.
> As an adult I could not even find the yard, the neighborhood converted from single family homes and duplexes to unending apartment buildings. There are few yards left. Hundreds of thousands of trees gone and numerous square miles of lawn are now home to 35,000 people living in only 1.6 square kilometers.


Good grief. This is pure narcissism.

Defining the geophysical state of an entire planet based on what you observe within visual range of your head over a nanofraction of the earths history is absurdly self-referential.

Silly, pompous, arrogant.

If there is too much "light pollution" in your back yard. Move your butt a few miles to a better viewing location.

I flew airplanes for many years. Get a few miles off shore over the open ocean and the sky is pitch black. From 35,000 feet, big cities are just little glowing dots.

Humanity is really quite insignificant on the scale of planet earth. It is only the overblown egos of solipsists and narcissists like Al Gore and his gaggle of brainless Hollywood celebutards that allows them to think that their presence on earth is a "global" ecological problem.

T. Holford

Private Reply to Thomas Holford

Dec 10, 2009 6:55 pm35 Inconvenient Truths > Big Three Networks Given Lap Dog Award:#

Mike Fesler BizHarmony
Big Three Networks Given Lap Dog Award


By Don | December 9, 2009



Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) has bestowed upon the big three broadcast news networks the Media Fairness Caucus' Lap Dog Award for their lack of coverage of the Climategate scandal.

(WASHINGTON) - Congressman Lamar Smith, chairman of the Congressional Media Fairness Caucus, today awarded ABC, CBS and NBC the "Lap Dog Award" for media bias in a speech on the House Floor. The Lap Dog Award is given weekly for the national news coverage that most glaringly exemplifies slanted, subjective, and otherwise sycophantic reporting/shilling.


Smith's remarks:


"ABC, CBS, and NBC are the winners of this week's Media Fairness Caucus' highly un-coveted 'Lap Dog Award' for the most glaring example of media bias.


"The networks took two weeks to devote any coverage to the 'Climategate' scandal on their evening news programs.


"We now know that prominent scientists were so determined to advance the idea of human-made global warming that they worked together to hide contradictory temperature data.


"But for two weeks, none of the networks gave the scandal any coverage on their evening news programs. And when they finally did cover it, their reporting was largely slanted in favor of global warming alarmists.


"The networks have shown a steady pattern of bias on climate change. During a six-month period, four out of five network news reports failed to acknowledge any dissenting opinions about global warming, according to a Business and Media Institute study.


"The networks should tell Americans the truth, rather than hide the facts."

Please see:
http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/big-three-networks-given-lap-dog-award/

M.

Private Reply to Mike Fesler BizHarmony

Dec 14, 2009 5:53 pmre: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: 35 Inconvenient Truths > Green Copenhagen has limits#

Reg Charie
So, between about eighteen fifty and today, the sea levels rose about 250 feet. In your dreams. Sea level measurements from 23 long tide gauge records in geologically stable environments show a rise of around 200 millimetres (8 inches) per century, or 2 mm/year.

You are talking 15 thousand or so years for that amount of rise.

2009 Client SEO report:
You rank better than 4,577,263,956 other websites.
http://dotcom-productions.com
Hosting http://0grief.com/special_hosting_accounts_for_my_ryze_friends.htm

Private Reply to Reg Charie

Dec 14, 2009 6:31 pmre: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: 35 Inconvenient Truths > Green Copenhagen has limits#

Thomas Holford
Reg Charie sayeth:

> So, between about eighteen fifty and today, the sea levels rose about 250 feet. In your dreams.


What are you talking about? No one said that.

Your second chart shows that sea level is 130 meters (420 feet) higher today than at was 19,000 years ago.

I think it is safe to say that there has been some significant "global warming" in the last 19,000 years to turn so much ice into sea water.

Question: If we had had "cap and trade" 19,000 years ago, how much LESS would the sea levels have risen?


T. Holford

Private Reply to Thomas Holford

Previous Topic | Next Topic | Topics

Back to Innovation Network





Ryze Admin - Support   |   About Ryze



Ryze Android preview app

Testing Gets Real: blog on A/B testing, building businesses with feedback loops, by Adrian Scott

© Ryze Limited. Ryze is a trademark of Ryze Limited.  Terms of Service, including the Privacy Policy