Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Oh dear. They may have murdered AGW

Rate this topic


Maarten
 Share

Recommended Posts

"overstated the case for man-made climate change."... Overstated? How about fabricated.

I can already see where this is leading... to a Royal commission that will take so long to pronounce a finding (which will take the form of an equivocation) that everyone except a dogged few will have forgotten what all the hoopla was about. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 207
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"overstated the case for man-made climate change."... Overstated? How about fabricated.

I can already see where this is leading... to a Royal commission that will take so long to pronounce a finding (which will take the form of an equivocation) that everyone except a dogged few will have forgotten what all the hoopla was about. :thumbsup:

We are in a position where the people who have been pushing the propaganda are also the people in charge of cleaning it up. I wouldn't expect much from them. It's the fox guarding the hen house. I think the pressure from without will be the real cause of change here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A two-year old document has surfaced in which the UN states that environmentalism should be regarded on the same level as religion:

Document Reveals U.N.'s Goal of Becoming Rule-Maker in Global Environmental Talks

Environmentalism should be regarded on the same level with religion "as the only compelling, value-based narrative available to humanity," according to a paper written two years ago to influence the future strategy of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), the world's would-be environmental watchdog.

The purpose of the paper, put together after an unpublicized day-long session in Switzerland by some of the world's top environmental bureaucrats: to argue for a new and unprecedented effort to move environmental concerns to "the center of political and economic decision-making" around the world — and perhaps not coincidentally, expand the influence and reach of UNEP at the tables of world power, as a rule-maker and potential supervisor of the New Environmental Order.

[...]

Among other things, both documents argue for:

—a "new and central position for environmentalism in the world's thinking," as the Swiss paper puts it. "The current environmental challenges and opportunities will cause the environment to move from often being considered as a marginal issue at the intergovernmental and national levels to the centre of political and economic decision-making," says the medium-term plan.

[...]

—a major restructuring of international institutions to merge environmental issues with economics as the central priority. "We require an Environmental Bretton Woods for the 21st Century," Halle argues — a reference to the meeting that laid the foundations of Western international finance and economic regulation after World War II. "The linkages between environmental sustainability and the economy will emerge as a key focus for public policymaking and a determinant of future markets opportunities," according to the UNEP strategic plan.

—new environmental rules, regulations and standards, and the linking of existing environmental agreements, in a stronger global lattice-work of environmental law, with stronger authority to command national governments. The Swiss paper calls it a series of "ambitious yet incremental adjustments" to international environmental governance. Indeed, the document says, UNEP's "role is to 'tee up' the next generation of such rules."

The UNEP four-year strategy puts it more obliquely, and only in a footnote on page 7 of the document: "UNEP will actively participate in the continuing international environmental governance discussions both within and outside the United Nations system, noting the repeated calls to strengthen UNEP, including its financial base, and the 'evolutionary nature of strengthening international environmental governance.'"

—an extensive propagandizing role for UNEP that reaches beyond its member governments and traditional environmental institutions to "children and youth" as well as business and political groups, to support UNEP strategic objectives.

[...]

The official four-year plan uses more restrained language in declaring that "civil society, including children and youth, and the private sector will be reached through tailor-made outreach products and campaigns.... Civil society will also be engaged to assist with UNEP outreach efforts." (The term "civil society," as used by the U.N., usually refers to organizations and associations that have received formal recognition from one branch or another of the sprawling world organization.)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,577827...5:b29117466:z10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cnn.com website returns zero hits when you search for "climategate"

This should be humorous to watch, assuming they eventually cover this story in more detail. It reminds me of Fox News's idiotic refusal to call it suicide bombing - instead referring to it as homicide bombing - yet when they quote people on the subject, they maintain the original quote's use of "suicide". I wonder if CNN will take a similar stance with Climategate, instead demanding that it be called, "Poor Innocent Champions of Climate Science Hacked by Russian Terrorists".

After lots of searching on their site, I finally hit a relevant result with "anglia": Hacked e-mails fuel climate change debate - from 5 days ago.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ETS legislation in Australia was rejected by the Senate for a second time, today. The turnaround in Liberal Party policy on the matter was one of the first things that new opposition leader Tony Abbott did, and so all but two Liberal MP's followed this new policy against the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Now that the Senate has rejected that legislation a second time the PM has authority to invoke Section 57 of the Australian Constitution and have the Governor-General declare a "double dissolution", meaning that both the House of Representatives and the Senate can be dissolved at the same time and a whole raft of elections conducted. The talk of the day has now turned to whether Rudd will do this, and if so, what are the prospects of the Liberal Party in that election.

Again, as far as I can see the major politicians are focussing exclusively on the taxation element and are making no mention of Climategate - and at this point (and after reputedly 400,000 letters to the Liberals condemning the ETS) I doubt very much if they haven't heard of it by now. Indeed, Abbott has even backed away from a previous claim he made that AGW is rubbish. Pragmatism, bloody pragmatism.

JJM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately he can't be bothered to fact-check the few "facts" he throws in at the end of the bit, particularly about dying polar bears and rising ocean levels. He reverts to the Gore Handbag of Tricks, even after mocking Gore at the beginning of the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does the State Science Institute ring a bell?

The incompetence found in the actual data analysis of the leaked material is even more of a smoking gun than the emails. Check out: “a very disturbing HARRY_READ_ME.txt file”

I didn't see this the first time I scanned the file... Check out this quote:

Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet

the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is

supposed to happen here?
Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have :-)

Forget smoking, this is the gun actually firing.

I just saw this quote pointed out in a blog comment, I couldn't believe it, so I went back to the file to see if it was really there... And yup, it was.

Here's is the actual HARRY_READ_ME.TXT file: http://www.di2.nu/foia/HARRY_READ_ME.txt

Edited by freestyle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't see this the first time I scanned the file... Check out this quote:

Forget smoking, this is the gun actually firing.

I just saw this quote pointed out in a blog comment, I couldn't believe it, so I went back to the file to see if it was really there... And yup, it was.

Here's is the actual HARRY_READ_ME.TXT file: http://www.di2.nu/foia/HARRY_READ_ME.txt

Good find!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good find!

Again the WSJ gets to the meat-core of it...in:

Climategate: Follow the Money - Climate change researchers must believe in the reality of global warming just as a priest must believe in the existence of God. By BRET STEPHENS

"...the monies they get are spent on something other than their intended purposes. But they depend on an inherently corrupting premise, namely that the hypothesis on which their livelihood depends has in fact been proved. Absent that proof, everything they represent—including the thousands of jobs they provide—vanishes. This is what's known as a vested interest, and vested interests are an enemy of sound science. "

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...4250205490.html

<Φ>aj

Edited by aristotlejones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can already see where this is leading... to a Royal commission...

Establish a Royal Commission to determine the cause and extent of Global Warming

350 Signatures

Published by Cameron MacKay on Nov 30, 2009

Category: Business

Region: Canada

Target: Prime Minister Stephen Harper

Web site: http://www.cammackay.com

http://www.gopetition.com/online/32485.html

also, from Australia:

Scientists call for Royal Commission* into Climate Change Science

Released today. Four independent scientists respond in detail to the evidence that government scientists claim shows that carbon dioxide causes significant global warming. The real debate continues. After the return fire from the skeptical experts, there was not a single point left standing.

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/scientist...change-science/

<Φ>aj

Edited by aristotlejones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good find!

Another from the WSJ by DANIEL HENNINGER

Climategate: Science Is Dying

"Hard science, alongside medicine, was one of the few things left accorded automatic stature and respect by most untrained lay persons. But the average person reading accounts of the East Anglia emails will conclude that hard science has become just another faction, as politicized and "messy" as, say, gender studies."

"For three centuries Galileo has symbolized dissent in science. In our time, most scientists outside this circle have kept silent as their climatologist fellows, helped by the cardinals of the press, mocked and ostracized scientists who questioned this grand theory of global doom. Even a doubter as eminent as Princeton's Freeman Dyson was dismissed as an aging crank."

"The East Anglians' mistreatment of scientists who challenged global warming's claims—plotting to shut them up and shut down their ability to publish—evokes the attempt to silence Galileo. "

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000142405...1993737848.html

<Φ>aj

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't see this the first time I scanned the file... Check out this quote:

Forget smoking, this is the gun actually firing.

I just saw this quote pointed out in a blog comment, I couldn't believe it, so I went back to the file to see if it was really there... And yup, it was.

Here's is the actual HARRY_READ_ME.TXT file: http://www.di2.nu/foia/HARRY_READ_ME.txt

Another 'find' in your e mail, freestyle, down near the bottom:-

"NO IDEA why, so saying they affect particular 0.5 - degree cells is harder than it should be. So we'll just gloss over that entirely ;0 "

It's that winking smiley that gets me!!

They have really been caught with their pants down.

Doesn't this say it all :

"SO WE"LL JUST GLOSS OVER THAT ENTIRELY ;0"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They have really been caught with their pants down.

Doesn't this say it all :

"SO WE"LL JUST GLOSS OVER THAT ENTIRELY ;0"

Yeah, doing real science is hard, so we just won't do it and gloss over the fact that we are faking data, while lives and livelihoods are at stake. This should be front page news, but I've heard it isn't. The title "Return of the Primitive" comes to mind to describe these jokers, and those trying to cover it up further by not reporting it. I hope word spreads far an wide via the Internet and these guys get kicked out of their jobs. They are regulating businesses, putting people out of work, and making lives miserable, all for the sake of a holy global warming scare that isn't based upon the facts at all. Reminds me of when I was working for DuPont and we had to deep well an off product of our process. That same product is used to clean water, and could have been used to clean up the bay area where I worked. But since it is a --eeww -- chemical, we had to go through a special process to dispose of it. The environmentalists will be the death of us all if we aren't careful -- of course, they want the plague of mankind to be wiped out anyhow, but this shows more of that same anti-man ideology. Anti-man and anti-mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another 'find' in your e mail, freestyle, down near the bottom:-

"NO IDEA why, so saying they affect particular 0.5 - degree cells is harder than it should be. So we'll just gloss over that entirely ;0 "

It's that winking smiley that gets me!!

They have really been caught with their pants down.

Doesn't this say it all :

"SO WE"LL JUST GLOSS OVER THAT ENTIRELY ;0"

Ohh... that's a another great example.

At this point, I cannot determine if it is the fraud or incompetence that is most stunning. I'm actually leaning towards incompetence, since I had already suspected the fraud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Few weeks ago there was a paper published in Nature (authored by Paul Pearson of Cardiff University) that showed some interesting results.

The greenhouse atmosphere pre-cooling contained a CO2 concentration of 900 parts per million by volume, or more than three times that of the Earth in pre-industrial days. It is not certain what triggered the Earth to cool despite, or because of, its changing green-house atmospheric blanket, but once it did, cycles of ice cap formation and glaciation commenced, apparently governed by the same variations in the Earth's orbit that govern the ice ages of the past million years.While the cooling of the Earth took place over a time-span of around 200,000 years, the atmospheric CO2 first dropped in association with the cooling, then rose to around 1100ppmv and remained high for 200,000 years while the Earth cooled further and remained in its new ice ages cycle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the main IPCC creeds is that the urban heat island effect has a negligible impact on large-scale averages such as CRU or GISS. They have been insisting for years that neither urbanization nor other local instrumental or thermal effects exaggerated the reported by them global warming trend.

A 6th grader with the help of his dad

took the data from NASA GISS for the last 111 years and showed otherwise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...the urban heat island effect has a negligible impact on large-scale averages...

A 6th grader...showed otherwise.

I suppose the eco-preists at the CRU could plead they were only acting in good faith in trying to follow the precautionary principle. It only takes a kid with some time on his hands and a good father to disprove their rationalizations. But the precautionary principle is insidious in our current paradigm, and is used to excuse all sorts of terrorist, achem - government encroachments on our health, longevity, road safety, transportation, opportunity, happiness, creativity, property rights and liberty.

A clever antidote to the precautionary principle is Extropy Institute's Proactionary Principle.

From their site:

What’s wrong with the Precautionary Principle?

The precautionary principle has at least six major weak spots. It serves us badly by:

  1. assuming worst-case scenarios
  2. distracting attention from established threats to health, especially natural risks
  3. assuming that the effects of regulation and restriction are all positive or neutral, never negative
  4. ignoring potential benefits of technology and inherently favoring nature over humanity
  5. illegitimately shifting the burden of proof and unfavorably positioning the proponent of the activity
  6. conflicting with more balanced, common-law approaches to risk and harm.

"The precautionary principle, while well-intended by many of its proponents, inherently biases decision making institutions toward the status quo, and reflects a reactive, excessively pessimistic view of technological progress. By contrast, the Proactionary Principle urges all parties to actively take into account all the consequences of an activity—good as well as bad—while apportioning precautionary measures to the real threats we face, in the context of an appreciation of the crucial role played by technological innovation and humanity’s evolving ability to adapt to and remedy any undesirable side-effects."

For more, goto:

http://www.extropy.org/proactionaryprinciple.htm

<Φ>aj

Edited by aristotlejones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the leaked emails talks about a "trick". As expected, various pro-AGW folk have been telling the media that this is a synonym for "clever (but honest) technique". Why was the "technique" used? What were they trying to address?

Steve McIntyre has blogged about what he thinks is the background to this. In summary:

  • When the researchers met in 1998 to decide one chapter for the IPCC report, they wanted to show a graph of rising temperatures
  • They had 5 separate data-series that they wanted to present
  • One of these 5 data-series, by a researcher named Keith Briffa showed temperatures going down in the last few decades, while the other graphs showed rises
  • Some researchers wanted to simply drop the inconvenient data-series from the graph, but Briffa objected
  • The final solution was to show the series all the way up to 1960, but not to depict the rest of it

For McIntyre's detailed post, and a few more snippets of emails from which he reconstructs this scenario, see his post here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah it seems like the general mindset of that article is "scientists are humans too! They can't be expected to be logical and right all the time!" Too bad their mistakes have allowed government to violate freedoms and cripple businesses. This article may let them get off without any consequences, though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...