Uh oh, Global Warming Loons: Here comes (Climategate II)..!

[jackovesk]

Uh oh, Global Warming Loons: Here comes Climategate II..!

22nd Nov 2011

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2011/11/Polarbears.jpg

Breaking news: two years after the Climategate, a further batch of emails has been leaked onto the internet by a person – or persons – unknown. And as before, they show the "scientists" at the heart of the Man-Made Global Warming industry in a most unflattering light.

Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Ben Santer, Tom Wigley, Kevin Trenberth, Keith Briffa – all your favourite Climategate characters are here, once again caught red-handed in a series of emails exaggerating the extent of Anthropogenic Global Warming, while privately admitting to one another that the evidence is nowhere near as a strong as they'd like it to be.

In other words, what these emails confirm is that the great man-made global warming scare is not about science but about political activism. This, it seems, is what motivated the whistleblower 'FOIA 2011' (or "thief", as the usual suspects at RealClimate will no doubt prefer to tar him or her) to go public.

As FOIA 2011 puts it when introducing the selected highlights, culled from a file of 220,000 emails:


“Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day.”

“Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes.”

“One dollar can save a life” — the opposite must also be true.

“Poverty is a death sentence.”

“Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize
greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.”

Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on
hiding the decline.

FOIA 2011 is right, of course. If you're going to bomb the global economy back to the dark ages with environmental tax and regulation, if you're going to favour costly, landscape-blighting, inefficient renewables over real, abundant, relatively cheap energy that works like shale gas and oil, if you're going to cause food riots and starvation in the developing world by giving over farmland (and rainforests) to biofuel production, then at the very least you it owe to the world to base your policies on sound, transparent, evidence-based science rather than on the politicised, disingenuous junk churned out by the charlatans at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

You'll find the full taster menu of delights here at Tall Bloke's website. Shrub Niggurath is on the case too. As is the Air Vent.

I particularly like the ones expressing deep reservations about the narrative put about by the IPCC:

/// The IPCC Process ///


<1939> Thorne/MetO:

Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the
uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these
further if necessary [...]

<3066> Thorne:

I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it
which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

<1611> Carter:

It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much
talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by
a select core group.

<2884> Wigley:

Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of
dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...]

<4755> Overpeck:

The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s
included and what is left out.

<3456> Overpeck:

I agree w/ Susan [Solomon] that we should try to put more in the bullet about
“Subsequent evidence” [...] Need to convince readers that there really has been
an increase in knowledge – more evidence. What is it?

And here's our friend Phil Jones, apparently trying to stuff the IPCC working groups with scientists favourable to his cause, while shutting out dissenting voices.

<0714> Jones:

Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital – hence my comment about
the tornadoes group.

<3205> Jones:

Useful ones [for IPCC] might be Baldwin, Benestad (written on the solar/cloud
issue – on the right side, i.e anti-Svensmark), Bohm, Brown, Christy (will be
have to involve him ?)

Here is what looks like an outrageous case of government – the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs – actually putting pressure on climate "scientists" to talk up their message of doom and gloom in order to help the government justify its swingeing climate policies:

<2495> Humphrey/DEFRA:

I can’t overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a
message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their
story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made
to look foolish.

Here is a gloriously revealing string of emails in which activists and global warming research groups discuss how best to manipulate reality so that climate change looks more scary and dangerous than it really is:

<3655> Singer/WWF:

we as an NGO working on climate policy need such a document pretty soon for the
public and for informed decision makers in order to get a) a debate started and
b) in order to get into the media the context between climate
extremes/desasters/costs and finally the link between weather extremes and
energy

<0445> Torok/CSIRO:

[...] idea of looking at the implications of climate change for what he termed
“global icons” [...] One of these suggested icons was the Great Barrier Reef [...]
It also became apparent that there was always a local “reason” for the
destruction – cyclones, starfish, fertilizers [...] A perception of an
“unchanging” environment leads people to generate local explanations for coral
loss based on transient phenomena, while not acknowledging the possibility of
systematic damage from long-term climatic/environmental change [...] Such a
project could do a lot to raise awareness of threats to the reef from climate
change

<4141> Minns/Tyndall Centre:

In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public
relations problem with the media

Kjellen:

I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global
warming

Pierrehumbert:

What kind of circulation change could lock Europe into deadly summer heat waves
like that of last summer? That’s the sort of thing we need to think about.

I'll have a deeper dig through the emails this afternoon and see what else I come up with. If I were a climate activist off to COP 17 in Durban later this month, I don't think I'd be feeling a very happy little drowning Polie, right now. In fact I might be inclined to think that the game was well and truly up.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100119087/uh-oh-global-warming-loons-here-comes-climategate-ii/

PS - I did my part along with 70% of othe Aussies trying to prevent Australia signing onto the 'Global Warming - Carbon Tax' (SCAM) to no avail...

Looks to me like the only thing that is going to 'Stop' (SCAMS) like these is the 'TRUTH' and the 'TRUTH' is coming to our rescue yet again..!

Rest assure the NWO Globalist Mafia are not going to win this battle either..!

[music]

Most of those emails seem to me to show caution being expressed (as befits a complex problem), and perhaps despair at the hi-jacking of the debate by politicians and vested interest. A few only are what I would call dodgy. Hardly worth the hyperbole.

There is no doubting that the carbon tax and carbon accounting/trading have been manipulated by proponents of NWO. It would be naive to think they wouldn't have done this. It is also naive to think they wouldn't be playing both sides against the other, creating disharmony and animosity. It would seem natural for them to instill doubt about climate change to divert the energy of dissent there, rather than to the way carbon taxation is being handled.

A look at millions of years of data shows that the beginning of carbon sequestration as fossil fuel reserves from the end of Devonian times coincides with a trend to the stable climate we have today. I think it would be wise to at least give some fairly serious consideration before we continue burning off those reserves at the current rate.

And you are a proponent of fracking? OMFG! I'm starting to suspect you have a heavy investment in shares in energy and exploration companies. Are you prepared to declare your vested interest here?

[jackovesk]

And you are a proponent of fracking? OMFG! I'm starting to suspect you have a heavy investment in shares in energy and exploration companies. Are you prepared to declare your vested interest here?


And you are a proponent of fracking? OMFG!

What...Are you talking about Music..?


I'm starting to suspect you have a heavy investment in shares in energy and exploration companies. Are you prepared to declare your vested interest here?

Here's my vested interest in (Coal Seam Gas Fracking)..!


Coal Seam Gas Fracking May Have Caused 50 Earthquakes in Oklahoma..!
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?34217-Coal-Seam-Gas-Fracking-May-Have-Caused-50-Earthquakes-in-Oklahoma..-&highlight=fracking

UK 'Coal Seam Gas Fracking' Co. blamed for '50 Earth Tremors' in Australia..!
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?34010-UK-Coal-Seam-Gas-Fracking-Co.-blamed-for-50-Earth-Tremors-in-Australia..-&highlight=fracking

The 'Fracking' Truth about the Globalists Rape of Australia. In a 'Poem'..!
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?29432-The-Fracking-Truth-about-the-Globalists-Rape-of-Australia.-In-a-Poem-..-&highlight=fracking

Australia is 'Finally' starting to 'Fight Back' against Coal Seam Gas Fracking..!
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?27710-Australia-is-Finally-starting-to-Fight-Back-against-Coal-Seam-Gas-Fracking..-&highlight=fracking

Difference of Opinion and Debate is welcomed (Backed up by Substance/Fact in support of your View), but...

Its people like you, who (Make-Up) False Rumors/Innuendo...Who are no better than the 'NWO Globalists' who thought up these (Scams) in the 1st place..!

What are you doing here at Avalon..?

I want an 'Apology'..!

[music]

I am here for many reasons, Jack, but a question you might better ask is why I am here for you?

To take a fact or an expressed opinion, move it sideways a couple of steps, and extrapolate to an unfavourable conclusion is not nice. It hurts, but every pain contains a lesson for us. I am sorry I hurt you, Jack.

You present information, but it comes in a basket of aggression and fear. Fear is the millstone around the neck of humanity that binds us to the old paradigm. Fear is the driver of the bully, and in an intellectual sense, does nothing but stifle debate or discourse. Just as the child who dies of starvation in Africa may have had the understanding to solve many of our most pressing and distressing ills, so too the voice stifled by fear or lack of confidence in the face of aggression may contain the seed of solution.

[jackovesk]

I am here for many reasons, Jack, but a question you might better ask is why I am here for you?

To take a fact or an expressed opinion, move it sideways a couple of steps, and extrapolate to an unfavourable conclusion is not nice. It hurts, but every pain contains a lesson for us. I am sorry I hurt you, Jack.

You present information, but it comes in a basket of aggression and fear. Fear is the millstone around the neck of humanity that binds us to the old paradigm. Fear is the driver of the bully, and in an intellectual sense, does nothing but stifle debate or discourse. Just as the child who dies of starvation in Africa may have had the understanding to solve many of our most pressing and distressing ills, so too the voice stifled by fear or lack of confidence in the face of aggression may contain the seed of solution.

What a Load of 'Crap',


And you are a proponent of fracking? OMFG! I'm starting to suspect you have a heavy investment in shares in energy and exploration companies. Are you prepared to declare your vested interest here?

So you feel its Ok to 'Slander' others and try insinuate 'Falsities' do you...If I made a 'Unfounded False Accusation' against you, would you not want an apology &/or explanation..?

You said what you said because you wanted me to 'Bite' - plain and simple..! Well Done...You happy now 'Precious'...

Ever since I've been here I have always 'Spoke My Mind' and if I have a 'Issue' with anyone I don't beat around bush with pleasant prose, I tell it like it is as per my response to your 'Fracking Innuendo'

I see right through your pathetic/cowardly game playing...

I'll leave you with this picture, which just about sums up the whole 'Global Warming' Tax (SCAM)

11504

:focus:

[music]

Love and blessings to you, Jack.

[Ishtar]

It's really not realistic to suspect someone who doesn't subscribe to the theory of man-made global warming of having an agenda, when we've so patently had the anthropogenic warming agenda shoved down our throats ( or up other part of our anatomy!) for more than decade now. It was an easy scam to pull because it resonated with our archetypal fear of being chucked out of the Garden for 'our sins'. So AGW scepticism is more of an indication that that person can use their own critical faculties independently of any psy-ops campaign, including 'Green peer pressure'.

Most of us in the West are born into a consensual reality which is underpinned, psychologically, by archetypal themes and motifs which are derived from a Judaic religion. (By the way, I’m not anti-Semitic and I think the Jews have many things going for them but, in my opinion, their religion is not one of them.) This is why we are complete suckers for always being the Fall guy for whatever happens. After the account of the Creation of the Earth in Genesis, the very next story we come to is about how man sinned by eating the apple from the Tree of Knowledge and so was banished from the Garden of Eden.

No-one has ever managed to explain sufficiently why eating such a tasty and health-giving fruit should be wrong, and I don’t know anyone who’s ever seen a Tree of Knowledge or even why partaking of the fruits of knowledge would be considered “a bad thing”. Yet the illogic of the story doesn’t matter, and might even serve its purpose better. Our subconscious resonates much more willingly with irrationality and it works hard to construct metaphors with such motifs which make sense to it.

For me, the jury on the man-made global warming theory is still out. I find the evidence to be inconclusive and all the money and research heavily weighted towards one outcome ~ that it is all man’s fault. And I've a suspicion that this outcome is supported by our subconscious minds’ view that we’re about to be banished from the Garden of Eden for the sin of accessing the Tree of Knowledge (the internet) through our Apple Macs ~ the favourite computer of choice for those who work in the advertising industry.

I wrote a blog post about it, recently, and as I've been asked not to put links to my blog but to copy and paste any relevant articles, here it is:



Is Man-Made Global Warming The New Original Sin?

http://therapybook.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/nude-global-warming.jpg?w=584&h=391


I’m raising this question because I wonder if our consensual reality has to make us the Fall guy for something now that the Original Sin of religious thinking has been mainly debunked. If we zoom out a bit, to see how the prevailing view that global warming is man-made came about, we can apply a little more independent critical thought to the issue.

For instance, back in the early Nineties, I was a journalist specialising in environmental stories, one of which was global warming. Global warming in itself ~ man-made or not ~ was considered then to be a completely crack pot idea by the media. And so I would be well wrapped up in thick coats, gloves, woolly scarves and hats when I would go to interview my contacts at Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace in the winter. They were in run-down buildings in the shabbier part of the London, and often couldn’t afford to put the heating on. They were always overcrowded with too many desks packed into stuffy rooms, and there would be stacks of papers falling off the tops of filing cabinets … basically, they had no money and no backing … and the only time they made the press, it was as objects of ridicule.

Fast forward a decade or so and I start to find myself at conferences where Greenpeace are on the platform with the likes of Shell and Norwich Union who are all falling over backwards to show how sustainable they are, and how they worked with their ‘partners’, Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth, to achieve this. I also had to write a sustainable section to Rio Tinto’s website because now mining companies could not get a licence to drill a mine anywhere in the world without producing an extensive plan for the surrounding area which had to tick every box under corporate social responsibility that now included ecological concerns.

At the last conference I covered a couple of years ago, the then prime minister, Gordon Brown, three secretaries of state and numerous ministers were on the stage promoting clean, low carbon technologies and promising to change the planning laws so that more than 700 wind turbines could be put into the North Sea. But this new thinking about clean energy technology wasn’t because the whole cabinet had suddenly had Damascean conversions over organic living and started growing brown rice in their herbaceous borders. It was because, as Gordon Brown said, he wanted to make the UK a world leader in clean technology to create new employment opportunities (always a vote winner!) and also that it would reduce our dependence on Middle East oil.

So suddenly, man-made global warming was fashionable in high places and everyone started following the money.

Most of the advertising copywriting work that I got following that was low carbon-related, because masses of money and political influence were being pumped into all work that supported the concept of man-made global warming, while scientific studies which support the other side of the argument get little to no funding or publicity. So it amazes me that the argument against man-made global warming makes any impact at all… even though it has much going for it.

Six solid reasons against man-made global warming

1. Ice core samples taken from the Vostok region of Antarctica show that the Earth has continually gone through cycles of warming and cooling over 400,000 years, at least, and that the frequent Ice Ages are always preceded by periods of warming which are characterised ~ but not necessarily caused ~ by a high level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

2. It has never been proven that carbon dioxide drives temperature. In recent years, carbon dioxide levels in the atmsophere are very high, but the planet has been cooling for more than a decade (if you believe the IPCC figures) and for more than 40 years if you believe other data culled from satellites, tree rings etc (and I do). But by exclusively concentrating on man-emitted carbon dioxide as the main culprit, scientists are missing so many other possible causes for warming and cooling cycles such as solar activity.

3. As we saw from the “Climategate” scandal, climate scientists are not averse to cooking the figures so that they can reach a conclusion which will ensure continued funding.

4. Hundreds of high profile and respected scientists have dissented from global warming claims or resigned over the issue (see U.S. Senate Minority Report) including, last month, Dr. Ivar Giaever. This former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics abruptly announced his resignation last month from the American Physical Society in disgust over its officially stated policy that “global warming is occurring.”

5. Predictions about global warming are based on computer modelling, but computer data is only as good as the knowledge of the person who inputs it, added to which: “We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system,” stated atmospheric scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, formerly of NASA, and who has authored more than 190 studies.

6. Other planets in our solar system, which don’t have denizens pumping out carbon dioxide, are currently experiencing global warming, such as Jupiter, Pluto and Neptune’s moon, Triton. In addition, the “ice caps” near Mars’s south pole are melting (see article in National Geographic).

What is causing global warming?

And so if man’s emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere are not causing global warming, what could be?

According to Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who worked on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports,

“Current warming is consistent with a 300 year trend. Changes in solar activity could explain much of it. Then there is the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere ‘hot’’ zone that is supposed to exist over the tropics. Temperature measurements show that the hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”

If you look at this graph of previous Ice Ages, produced by the Vostok scientists, you’ll see that there have been ups and downs in the Earth’s temperature, some quite extreme, for hundreds of thousands of years.

http://therapybook.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/vostok-3-graph1.png?w=400&h=300

Steven M Japar is referring to a 300 year cycle because that’s when the Earth last experienced a “mini Ice Age”, lasting from 1790 to 1830, or Dalton Minimum as it’s known because it’s named after the English meteorologist John Dalton. Like the Maunder Minimum which preceded it (1645 to 1715), the Dalton Minimum was characterised by very low sun spot activity, as we are witnessing now as we’re about to go into another very cold winter in the UK.

In other words, it is much more likely that the Sun is causing global warming, if that is what is happening. And given the evidence of the Vostok ice cores, we could well be about to enter an Ice Age.

Ice Age Earth
http://ishtarsgate.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/vostok-ice-age-earth.jpg?w=400&h=400

I would like to finish up by saying that I think it’s a mistake to mentally pigeon-hole as some kind of environmental vandal those who point out the flaws in the man-made global warming argument. Most care very much about the environment, as do I and as evidenced by our campaign against chemtrails over Glastonbury Tor. I also recycle all my rubbish and have an organic herb garden.

It seems to me to be complete hypocrisy for our governments to blame us for bringing the end of the world on our heads through global warming when they are spraying the skies all over the globe with heavy metals and other deadly toxic chemical pollutants.

http://therapybook.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/pilots2.jpg?w=400&h=310

My belief is that we should respect and value our Mother, the Earth, and treat Her with all due love and care … just as we would our human mothers … and that includes honouring any cycles She goes through in Her cosmic course which includes, of course, Ice Ages and periods of warming that have always, according to the Vostok ice cores, naturally preceded them.

[ThePythonicCow]

And you are a proponent of fracking? OMFG! I'm starting to suspect you have a heavy investment in shares in energy and exploration companies. Are you prepared to declare your vested interest here?


I want an 'Apology'..!

music - that post of yours (partially quoted above) looked to me to be a good example of trolling (http://www.netlingo.com/word/troll.php). It started off like a sensible post, and ended with the apparent intent of provoking readers into an emotional response (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29).

jackovesk - may I suggest that silence is a more fruitful response in such cases than an indignant request for an apology, no matter how clearly it seems an apology is due?

[Cjay]

I was gobsmacked by that fracking nonsense and even more blown away by the pseudo-intellectual diarrhoea that flowed in the supposed apology.

[music]

And you are a proponent of fracking? OMFG! I'm starting to suspect you have a heavy investment in shares in energy and exploration companies. Are you prepared to declare your vested interest here?


I want an 'Apology'..!

music - that post of yours (partially quoted above) looked to me to be a good example of trolling (http://www.netlingo.com/word/troll.php). It started off like a sensible post, and ended with the apparent intent of provoking readers into an emotional response (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29).



Not neccessarily so. Extraction of shale oil from rock ex-situ is such an energy inefficient prospect, that all production will be pushed in-situ. In-situ extraction of shale oil is fraught with the same environmental hazards as fracking, most imprtantly, aquifer contamination. Hence "To take a fact or an expressed opinion, move it sideways a couple of steps, and extrapolate to an unfavourable conclusion is not nice."

OK, maybe trolling a bit, my bad. I'll examine post of my own more thoroughly in future.

[music]

Ishtar, re your post above (which I enjoyed reading), I would agree with much of what you say.

Is the situation regarding climate change complex? Yes, much more so than most appreciate.

Do we understand the systems involved? No, not fully, and it’s doubtful we ever will because we are talking about the interactions of multiple chaotic systems.

Is climate change science flawed and tainted by vested interest? Yes, on BOTH sides.

Will carbon taxation prevent climate change? No, it will merely convey the money of the poor to the rich without causing any reduction in CO2 outputs.

Is there purity of intent involved in the debate? Rarely. Purity of intent is only possible by engaging both the heart, and the head.

You show purity of intent.

I would like to offer a perspective on some things discussed by you. Briefly, the essence of all faiths lies not in the standard texts, but in the works of the mystical sects. The essence of Judaic wisdom is found in the Kabbalistic tradition, and in examination of the Tree of Life as it pertains to the spiritual and psychological implications of a duality based paradigm. I see the concept of original sin as an allegory, and the fruit eaten is the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. Good and evil are concepts that relate to a dualistic existence, so an awakened and enlightened state of being is all that is required to return to the metaphorical Garden of Eden. Adam, Eve, and the serpent are a representation of what I would call the “true Trinity” – male + female + magic/spirit/serpent/dragon (call it what you will) = unity consciousness/enlightenment/ascension/heaven/nirvana (again, call it what you will). The first mystical experience I had was at age 7, when I received a vision of the St George myth. In it, I was shown that St George (male) does not slay the dragon (spirit/magic). Rather, the maiden (female) slips a red cord around the neck of the beast, and instructs St George to confront his fear, open his heart, and allow for integration of the male/female/spirit Trinity.

In regard to climate change, the situation is far too complex, and the consequences too far reaching for us to allow politics or the flow of riches to dictate our responses. Data sets that contain all currently understood variables are too complex for sensible analysis, so we compartmentalise the data, then over-analyse it by e.g. inappropriate logarithmic transformation prior to already suspect statistical analysis methods to get the numbers we want. It happens on both sides here, and in much science. That said, while the role of CO2 in climate fluctuation is not understood, when one examines temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels of, say, 400 mya (Devonian period), we find the mean temperature was some 7 degrees C above what many would call the “optimum” climatic conditions for life on earth evidenced during the early Holocene. In fact, apart from the blip of the little ice age (1550-1850), we had a fairly stable climate for the last 9000 years. Atmospheric CO2 in the Devonian was up to 10 times the average for the Holocene (modern) period.

It is possible that the higher than expected rise in temperature evidenced after the little ice age may be CO2 related, or then again, it may not be related. It is also possible that CO2 is one of many factors, and indeed, this is the more likely scenario. Comparing atmospheric CO2 from ice cores to historic temperature estimates, or even using current data for both is fraught with difficulty. There are several possible reasons for observed temp/CO2 lags. Henry's Law deals with the absorption of gases by liquid. Basically, cold water absorbs up to 30% more CO2 from memory. There are also potential issues with differences in metabolic rates (plant and chemical) at different temperatures, and the issue of deposition, liberation (and C oxidation) of methane chelates (deep sea methane ice) to CO2 upon exposure. Excess atmospheric CO2 may not be the initial driver of climate change, but it may be an important catalyst in accelerated and extreme climatic fluctuations. The Greenhouse effect still works, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and one which it is within our power to regulate. I don’t say tax carbon, I say phase out and cease the burning of fossil fuels as soon as we can. To do otherwise is insanity.