The Climate Change Hoax

That argument is weaker than soggy tissue paper.
The consensus also said :

Let there be democracy.

Let us have clean water and an efficient sewage system to reduce sickness and life threatening disease.

Let us immunize our children against polio.

Let us devise laws to abide by.

Let us have a constitution.

Let us give the vote to women.

All these ideas had " naysayers " and initial opposition.

Want any more ?

I can`t help but think that all or most of the " hoaxist " fraternity here would have refuted or outright denied the cause of the first cholera epidemics.....a clear case of the results of ( literally ) " shitting in our own nest.".

In 1854 London physician Dr John Snow discovered that the disease was transmitted by drinking water contaminated by sewage after an epidemic centred in Soho, but this idea was not widely accepted..

"For his persistent efforts to determine how cholera was spread and for the statistical mapping methods he initiated, John Snow is widely considered to be the father of [modern] epidemiology."

Heck , it was only the birth of Epidemiology , Bacteriology......" Consensus " swung in his favour , and very quickly at that.

Sound familiar ?

Yet , once again....

 

I don't think I'd be going out on a limb to say that the graph and data from Mauna Loa have been posted at least 12 times to the other thread, maybe more like 20 times. I know I've cited that very page several times. We who have studied this subject in some depth are no doubt very familiar with the monotonically rising atmospheric CO2 concentration charted there.

But nothing about that data proves that human industry is the cause of rising CO2 levels.

However the AGW narrative asserts that the reason CO2 levels are rising is that CO2 is 'accumulating' in the atmosphere due to anthropogenic sources. This implies several things at once. First it implies that 'incidental' releases of CO2 can accumulate in the atmosphere. This in turn implies that the rate at which CO2 normally leaves or is 'fluxed' from the atmosphere is slow, so that such an accumulation is even possible. The time that CO2 remains in the atmosphere is referred to as the 'residence time' and is usually expressed as a 'half-life', which is the time required for half of the CO2 influx to be fluxed from the atmosphere. If the residence time is short, it's not possible for CO2 to accumulate from any conceivable incidental terrestrial source, of which human industry is certainly not the largest. The AGW alarmists understand this, so they concocted the idea of the long residence time by assuming that all or nearly all of the observed rise in CO2 concentration is due to human industry, and then working out what residence time was needed to make this possible. This number proved to be "50-200 years". Note that NO actual measurements were taken; it is an uncontested fact that this long residence time came from computer modeling, NOT atmospheric measurements.

You should be aware that there is NO scientific paper on CO2 residence time yet published which supports the assertion of a long residence time for atmospheric CO2 based on ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS. The IPCC uses estimates of the CO2 residence time that are the result of computer modeling. This is where they get their “50-200 years” figure, NOT from any of the studies based on measured data, which show a much shorter residence time. This computer model based estimate first appeared in the IPCC’s 1990 report and is still used. The paper(Houghton, J.T., Jenkins, G.J. & Ephraums, J.J. (Eds.) 1990) which first made the 50-200 year claim CLEARLY AND FREELY ADMITTED that this estimate was based on computer modeling.

The problem is, the real measured residence time of CO2 was already well-established when these statements were originally made, and the plethora of available measurement-based studies consistently concluded that the residence expressed as half-life time is short, somewhere between 5 and 6 years, and certainly no more than 10. Of the 36 studies published, NONE concluded that the residence time is ANYWHERE NEAR the IPCC’s modeled “50-200″ years.

So put up or shut up; the residence time is either long or it's not. There is no supporting study based on measurements which sows it to be long. The basic assumption of the AGW narrative is therefore wrong.

If you'd like to see the list of 35 of these studies with their published residence times which were ALL published in peer-reviewed scientific journals by many different scientists working in different countries over a ~50 period, I can happily post them...AGAIN.


Jimbo

 

a moderate proposal

I'm a skeptic of AGW, but I have to say that if I were inclined to believe in AGW, some of the posts I've seen from fellow skeptics on this forum would be more likely to make me think that all the skeptics are kooks than it would be to change my mind. Hysterical ranting about murderous nazi scientists wanting to take over the world is not the sort of thing to give the skeptic side credibility.

Also, it doesn't really help to demand on a forum of boat enthusiasts that someone produce scientific evidence of global warming. Most of the readers are not climatologists, amateur or otherwise. And just because someone can't repeat the scientific evidence for a theory, that does not mean that the theory is doubtful or that they are fools for believing it. How many of you could explain the scientific evidence against the existence of phlogiston or the aether? (I could do both, but I'm not a naval architect )

While I think some of the skeptic posts have been very persuasive (like the residence time of CO2), it doesn't add anything to persuasiveness to be so challenging. Present the facts and give people time to think it over. I think the skeptical position is very strong and you just need to get people to once be willing to doubt the infallibility of consensus science. Their own reasoning will do the rest.

 

The points you made are well noted Dave.

I think you are being a little unkind by just bundling and dismissing an opposing view
as " consensus science ".

A lot of intelligent , competent scientists are part of this " consensus science ".

It deserves a little more.

As for the " murderous nazi scientists " well .....I think we already know what to make of that ,and it does provide some comedy relief , if nothing else.

 

Well consider yourself excluded, I was answering Troy and said normal people like Troy and me. See I consider Troy normal because of his hat. I don't really know you so much as to consider you normal because you are covering your face. So there.

Yes we could digress onto German history but you are not interested, only hoping to find some way to ridicule me.
However anyone that is interested in the similitude between Global Warming movement and a new form of fascism or nazism only needs to do a Google search and read what others have perceived so far.

Just like the fascist of old, the movement aims at a global authority by default, (no elections), authoritarian laws and restrictions of freedom (for the comon good) and more legislation to persecute the transgressors ( who sin against the movement). More legislation to make denying illegal. Skeptics will lose their jobs, denied promotions, banned from publishing findings against the new fürer etc.

Since you are in Australia I am sure you had the privilege to see Penny Wong's performance. Now picture her in full Prussian uniform, waving with a (green) olive branch...sorry blue gum tree branch from a bullet proof glass carriage, whilst the protesters are silenced with tear gases and the butt of their rifle.
In the first row, the school children in green recycled Prussian uniform salute the saviour of the planet: Mine führerin! Or words to that effect.

 

I don`t make a practice of ridiculing anyone .
However ,I`m sorry to say , you will attract ridicule by making those kind of statements.

The fact that you group people , who don`t share your particular view , as nazis , nazi sympathizers , or in any other way connected to them , or having anything in common with them ,is quite contemptible. If you choose to take that line you will lose credibility.You cannot blame that on anyone else.

As far as Penny Wong is concerned , all I can say is ,what makes you think that there is anyone that does not recognize her for the useless , hollow , glove muppet that she is ? Performance ? As a glove muppet ,yes maybe.They come , they go .....never to be heard of again. Her " career " is as good as over anyway.The only reason she`s still where she is , lays in the fact that Australians by and large have become disinterested and apathetic about her mindless , worthless , dribble . She babbles , and nobody listens. An election is on it`s way......

You need to do a little better marco. Don`t believe me ... read the previous post by dave #183

Do you really think it does your standing here any good ? Your`e stretching it a little too far....

 

Yes yes, I agree. Lets forget the fascist for a minute, after all I wasn't the first to spot the link. Many others did too.

So for argument sake, had I...let's say one month ago, brought up the following conspiracy theory.

Top scientific body that supplies most data to the UN to support the global warming theory have colluded to falsify dta nad delete large portion of databases to hide their collution etc etc

How much ridicule would that have attracted? Heaps? Would you also suggest to me that I was loosing credibility and that I should "do better"
Probably.

However the above is true and fact. How much longer until we find out more? I can't wait. I hope it takes less time than to find the shooter on the grassy knoll.

Yes, we agree on Penny Wong, "YOU WILL GET THE ETS LIKE IT OR LUMP IT" Hail democracy!

 

http://www.powerlineblog.com/aboutus.php


The biggest news story of the day is one that has barely begun to break and will continue to reverberate for months or years to come. Someone hacked into a computer at the University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Centre, one of the main centers of anthropogenic global warming research. The hacker downloaded over 200 megabytes of data from the server, consisting of around 1,000 emails and a variety of other documents. He uploaded them to an FTP server, where they were available to the public, apparently, for only a few hours. The event is described here.

Before the documents disappeared from that location, several people had downloaded them and posted them in other locations. I downloaded all of the material earlier today and have begun to review it. The emails are stunning. They are authored by many of the leading figures in the global warming movement: Michael Mann, James Hansen, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Stephen Schneider, and others. They are remarkably candid; these individuals talk to each other with the knowledge that they are among friends.

The emails I've reviewed so far do not suggest that these scientists are perpetrating a knowing and deliberate hoax. On the contrary, they are true believers. I don't doubt that they are sincerely convinced--in fact, fanatically so--that human activity is warming the earth. But the emails are disturbing nonetheless. What they reveal, more than anything, is a bunker mentality. These pro-global warming scientists see themselves as under siege, and they view AGW skeptics as bitter enemies. They are often mean-spirited; the web site American Thinker is referred to as "American Stinker;" at one point an emailer exults in the death of a global warming skeptic; another one suggests that the Ph.D. Of a prominent skeptic should be revoked because of an error he made decades ago in his dissertation; another says that he is tempted to "beat the crap out of" the same scientist. The emails show beyond any reasonable doubt that these individuals are engaged in politics, not science.

They also suggest that pro-global warming scientists fudge data to get the results they are looking for. Just over a month ago, on September 28, 2009, Tom Wigley wrote to Phil Jones of the Hadley Centre about his efforts to get the right-sized "blip" in temperatures of the 1940s:

Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean -- but we'd still have to explain the land blip.

I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and I think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this.

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip".

This and many other emails convey the impression that these theorists are making the "science" up as they go along, with data being manipulated until it yields the results that have been predetermined by political conviction.

Left-wing politics is a common theme of the emails. Thus, Michael Mann, author of the notorious "hockey stick" hoax, attacked those who don't buy the AGW theory on September 30, 2009:

Its part of the attack of the corporate-funded attack machine, I.e. Its a direct and highly intended outcome of a highly orchestrated, heavily-funded corporate attack campaign. We saw it over the summer w/ the health insurance industry trying to defeat Obama's health plan, we'll see it now as the U.S. Senate moves on to focus on the cap & trade bill that passed congress this summer.

This sort of paranoid thinking is odd, since the vast majority of the money in climate science is on the pro-global warming side. Among themselves, the pro-AGW scientists make no bones about their desire to get their hands on some of that cash. Thus, a British scientist wrote last month:

How should I respond to the below? [an article questioning AGW theory] (I'm in the process of trying to persuade Siemens Corp. (a company with half a million employees in 190 countries!) to donate me a little cash to do some CO2 measurments here in the UK - looking promising, so the last thing I need is news articles calling into question (again) observed temperature increases--

No wonder pro-global warming scientists are dogmatically committed to their theory, no matter what the data say: their livelihoods, as well as their professional reputations, depend on it. As a result, they conduct themselves like a secret cabal. Outsiders--that is to say, independent thinkers--are viewed with suspicion. One of the most striking emails I've come across so far is from Michael Mann to Phil Jones. It replies to an email from Jones that was copied to another scientist named Andy, relating to a recent fiasco in which tree ring research that was a basis for the U.N.'s IPCC report on global warming proved to be inaccurate if not fraudulent. [UPDATE: A reader says that "Andy" is Andy Revkin of the New York Times. That's possible, but I can't see anyplace in this email or elsewhere where "Andy" is identified.] Mann included this postscript in his reply:

p.s. be a bit careful about what information you send to Andy and what emails you copy him in on. He's not as predictable as we'd like

A world in which those who are "not as predictable as we'd like" are viewed with suspicion is a world of politics, not science.

Much more to come. In the morning, we'll see how liberal scientists circled the wagons to stave off criticism of inaccurate or fraudulent tree ring data.

UPDATE: This is the email that has gotten the most attention so far:

 

http://www.powerlineblog.com/aboutus.php

A fascinating, hot-off-the-presses story emerges from the emails that were hacked yesterday from the University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Centre. It is one of many exchanges that shed light on the priority that the global warming alarmists give to politics and career advancement over science.

The story began when Steve McIntyre, the same researcher who was largely responsible for destroying Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph purporting to show unprecedented warming in the 20th century, turned his attention to a famous article published by Keith Briffa of East Anglia's CRU in 2000. This article analyzed the diameters of tree rings, including rings from an area called Yamal in Siberia, and conveniently generated another hockey-stick shaped graph. You can read an account of the ensuing controversy here. McIntyre's work appeared to show that Briffa had cherry-picked trees in order to get the result he was looking for. One fact that this story highlights is that global warming alarmists publish their results in scientific journals, but refuse to make the underlying data publicly available so that the validity of their analyses can be checked.

McIntyre's revelations caused a firestorm of controversy, in response to which the alarmist community circled its wagons to fend off the threat from an outsider. This process can be clearly seen in the East Anglia emails.

The alarmists' effort to respond to McIntyre was complicated by the fact that Briffa had been ill and undergone surgery, and was then recuperating. So several of them wrote to Briffa's co-author, Tim Osborn, for advice on how to respond to McIntyre's critique. Osborn replied on September 29, 2009:

Hi Mike and Gavin, thanks for your emails re McIntyre, Yamal and Keith. I'll pass on your best wishes for his recovery when I next speak to Keith. He's been off almost 4 months now and won't be back for at least another month ....

Regarding Yamal, I'm afraid I know very little about the whole thing -- other than that I am 100% confident that "The tree ring data was hand-picked to get the desired result" is complete crap. Having one's integrity questioned like this must make your blood boil....

Apart from Keith, I think Tom Melvin here is the only person who could shed light on the McIntyre criticisms of Yamal. But he can be a rather loose cannon and shouldn't be directly contacted about this....

So: these scientists don't really have any idea whether McIntyre's critique of Briffa's work is correct or not. Even Briffa's co-author professes ignorance. There is one person they could approach who could "shed light on the McIntyre criticisms of Yamal." But they don't do it. Why? Because "he can be rather a loose cannon and shouldn't be directly contacted...." In other words, his loyalty to the cause of climate alarmism may not be absolute. This is much like the case noted here where Michael Mann, one of the recipients of the above email, warns against sharing information with someone named Andy because he is "not as predictable as we'd like."

Despite having no idea what the facts are, the alarmists don't hesitate to formulate a position. Thus, on the next day, September 30, Osborn writes:

Keith's temporarily come in to get a handle on all this, but it will take time. Likely outcome is (1) brief holding note that no cherry-picking was done and demonstrating data selection is defendable by our time tomorrow; (2) longer piece with more evaluation etc. in around a week. No point is posting something that turns out to be wrong.

That's good enough for Osborn's fellow alarmists. Michael Mann replies:

great--thanks Tim, sounds like we have a plan. in our post, which we'll target for tomorrow as well, we'll simply link to whatever CRU puts up and re-iterate the sentiment of the temporary short response (i.e. that there was no cherry-picking, a careful and defensible selection procedure was used) and we'll mostly focus on the broader issues, i.e. that any impact of this one series in the vast array of paleoclimate reconstructions (and the importance of the paleoclimate reconstructions themselves) has been over-stated, why these sorts of attacks are not legitimate science, etc.

Note that the alarmists are willing to denounce McIntyre's work as "not legitimate science" even though, at this point, they still have no idea whether his analysis was right or wrong. That is not, however, what they tell the outside world. On September 29, Andrew Revkin, environmental reporter for the New York Times, wrote to Mann asking about McIntyre's critique:

needless to say, seems the 2008 pnas paper showing that without tree rings still solid picture of unusual recent warmth, but McIntyre is getting wide play for his statements about Yamal data-set selectivity.

Has he communicated directly to you on this and/or is there any indication he's seeking journal publication for his deconstruct?

Mann, ignorant of the facts, responds by slandering McIntyre:

Hi Andy, I'm fairly certain Keith is out of contact right now recovering from an operation, and is not in a position to respond to these attacks. However, the preliminary information I have from others familiar with these data is that the attacks are bogus.

It is unclear that this particular series was used in any of our reconstructions (some of the underlying chronologies may be the same, but I'm fairly certain the versions of these data we have used are based on a different composite and standardization method), let alone any of the dozen other reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature shown in the most recent IPCC report, which come to the conclusion that recent warming is anomalous in a long-term context.

So, even if there were a problem w/ these data, it wouldn't matter as far as the key conclusions regarding past warmth are concerned. But I don't think there is any problem with these data, rather it appears that McIntyre has greatly distorted the actual information content of these data.

Given what is said in the other emails, that last attack on McIntyre appears to be simply fabricated out of whole cloth. Mann concludes by buttering up Revkin:

Fortunately, the prestige press doesn't fall for this sort of stuff, right?

mike

Of course not! Revkin replies, "Thanks heaps."

At the same time they were issuing these assurances to outsiders, however, the alarmists' internal communications were much more equivocal. On September 30, the day after he corresponded with Revkin, Mann asked Tim Osborn to confirm that a key 2006 paper co-authored by Osborn and Briffa was untainted by what is implicitly acknowledged to be Briffa's bad Yamal data:

And Osborn and Briffa '06 is also immune to this issue, as it eliminated any combination of up to 3 of the proxies and showed the result was essentially the same (fair to say this Tim?).

Osborn's reply is hedged at best, and includes a rather insouciant admission that he is "amazed" that the journal Science agreed to publish his paper in the first place:

Mike,

yes, you're right: figs S4-S6 in our supplementary information do indeed show results leaving out individual, groups of two, and groups of three proxies, respectively. It's attached.

I wouldn't say we were immune to the issue -- results are similar for these leave 1, 2 or 3 out cases, but they certainly are not as strong as the case with all 14 proxies.

Certainly in figure S6, there are some cases with 3 omitted (i.e. some sets of 11) where modern results are comparable with intermittent periods between 800 and 1100. Plus there is the additional uncertainty, discussed on the final page of the supplementary information, associated with linking the proxy records to real temperatures (remember we have no formal calibration, we're just counting proxies -- I'm still amazed that Science agreed to publish something where the main analysis only involves counting from 1 to 14!

).

But this is fine, since the IPCC AR4 and other assessments are not saying the evidence is 100% conclusive (or even 90% conclusive) but just "likely" that modern is warmer than M[edieval] W[arm] P[eriod]. ...

So, this Yamal thing doesn't damage Osborn & Briffa (2006), but important to note that O&B (2006) and others support the "likely" statement rather than being conclusive.

Cheers
Tim

Another member of the climate alarmist cabal, Tom Wigley, gave this darker assessment of Briffa's errors with regard to the tree ring data on October 5. Note in particular his concern about the alarmists' practice of withholding data from public review:

Phil,

It is distressing to read that American Stinker item. But Keith does seem to have got himself into a mess. As I pointed out in emails, Yamal is insignificant. And you say that (contrary to what M&M say) Yamal is *not* used in MBH, etc. ...

But, more generally, (even if it *is* irrelevant) how does Keith explain the McIntyre plot that compares Yamal-12 with Yamal-all? And how does he explain the apparent "selection" of the less well-replicated chronology rather that the later (better replicated) chronology?

Of course, I don't know how often Yamal-12 has really been used in recent, post-1995, work. I suspect from what you say it is much less often that M&M say -- but where did they get their information? I presume they went thru papers to see if Yamal was cited, a pretty foolproof method if you ask me. Perhaps these things can be explained clearly and concisely -- but I am not sure Keith is able to do this as he is too close to the issue and probably quite pissed of[f].

And the issue of with-holding data is still a hot potato, one that affects both you and Keith (and Mann). Yes, there are reasons -- but many *good* scientists appear to be unsympathetic to these. The trouble here is that with-holding data looks like hiding something, and hiding means (in some eyes) that it is bogus science that is being hidden.

I think Keith needs to be very, very careful in how he handles this. I'd be willing to check over anything he puts together.

Tom.

This strikes me as a damning commentary on the entire alarmist enterprise. Meanwhile, not only are Briffa's data flawed and seemingly cherry-picked, the assumptions on which the tree-ring studies are based may be bogus in the first place. The email collection includes these two messages from a plant scientist, both within the last 60 days:

Dear Professor Briffa, my apologies for contacting you directly, particularly since I hear that you are unwell. However the recent release of tree ring data by CRU has prompted much discussion and indeed disquiet about the methodology and conclusions of a number of key papers by you and co-workers.

As an environmental plant physiologist, I have followed the long debate starting with Mann et al (1998) and through to Kaufman et al (2009). As time has progressed I have found myself more concerned with the whole scientific basis of dendroclimatology. In particular;

1) The appropriateness of the statistical analyses employed
2) The reliance on the same small datasets in these multiple studies
3) The concept of "teleconnection" by which certain trees respond to the "Global Temperature Field", rather than local climate
4) The assumption that tree ring width and density are related to temperature in a linear manner.

Whilst I would not describe myself as an expert statistician, I do use inferential statistics routinely for both research and teaching and find difficulty in understanding the statistical rationale in these papers. As a plant physiologist I can say without hesitation that points 3 and 4 do not agree with the accepted science.

There is a saying that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". Given the scientific, political and economic importance of these papers, further detailed explanation is urgently required.

Yours sincerely,
Dr. Don Keiller.

Tree ring studies are vitally important to the conclusions reached by the U.N.'s IPCC report, which is the main foundation for the claim that anthropogenic global warming has been "proved." That being the case, one would think that Briffa, one of the two or three primary authors of the tree ring studies, would have a ready response to these very basic questions. But no: he did not reply to Dr. Keiller's email. That prompted this second inquiry from Dr. Keiller:

Dear Professor Briffa, I am pleased to hear that you appear to have recovered from your recent illness sufficiently to post a response to the controversy surrounding the use of the Yamal chronology; ([5]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/cautious/cautious.htm) and the chronology itself; ([6]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/)

Unfortunately I find your explanations lacking in scientific rigour and I am more inclined to believe the analysis of McIntyre ([7]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7588) Can I have a straightforward answer to the following questions

1) Are the reconstructions sensitive to the removal of either the Yamal data and Strip pine bristlecones, either when present singly or in combination?

2) Why these series, when incorporated with white noise as a background, can still produce a Hockey-Stick shaped graph if they have, as you suggest, a low individual weighting?

And once you have done this, please do me the courtesy of answering my initial email.
Dr. D.R. Keiller

Again, one might assume that if the science surrounding global warming is settled, the alarmists would have good answers to such basic questions, and certainly would be willing to engage in debate in a spirit of open-minded inquiry. Such, however, is not the case. Phil Jones of East Anglia advised Briffa against trying to respond to the plant scientist on October 20:

Keith,

There is a lot more there on CA now. [I'm pretty sure CA is Climate Audit, a web site where McIntyre posts.] I would be very wary about responding to this person now having seen what McIntyre has put up.

You and Tim talked about Yamal. Why have the bristlecones come in now. [1]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7588#comments

This is what happens - they just keep moving the goalposts. Maybe get Tim to redo OB2006 without a few more series.

Cheers
Phil

As far as I can tell from the email archive, Briffa never did respond to the plant scientist. Jones's email warning Briffa to be "very wary about responding to this person now having seen what McIntyre has put up" was written just three weeks ago. It, along with the rest of the email archive, makes an utter mockery of the alarmists' claim that the science of global warming is settled in their favor.

On the contrary, the conclusion an observer is likely to draw from the CRU archive is that the climate alarmists are making up the science as they go along and are fitting facts to reach a predetermined conclusion rather than objectively seeking after truth. What they are doing is politics, not science. When I was in law school, this story was told about accountants: A CEO is going to hire a new accountant and summons a series of candidates. He asks each applicant, "What is two plus two?" The first two candidates answer, "Four." They don't get the job. The third responds, "What do you want it to be?" He gets hired. The climate alarmists' attitude toward data appears to me much the same as that fictional accountant's attitude toward arithmetic.

 

Marco ......lets just put this in perspective...

Here we have an element of " rotten apples " no ?
Lets agree on a yes.......for what ever reason.....including the ones put forth by the naysayers .....fine.

So here we have the rotten apple brigade , with their evil plans to bolster their own vested interests......fine .
It`s not the first time anything like this has happened , nor will it be the
last. We all know this.If found guilty .....hang them from the yard arm , no problem .

All you are doing is getting blinded by " the conspiracy ". For you this is like watching desperate housewives ...So shoot the ******** ......and please move on !

Now , this is what I have the problem with ....

There are MANY other competent , articulate , distinguished ,and credible scientists out there that have made their case disputing the naysayers.
In fact , like it or not , the majority.

I don`t believe they are driven by an evil , dishonest , corrupt , or fraudulent agenda.
In fact , I believe that they genuinely believe in their work , their findings and data , and all the research and effort they have expended collating it.

They are the genuine think tank of climate change.They have also reached consensus.Consensus which makes a very strong case .
These guys are not agenda driven . To suggest otherwise is just as evil , fraudulent , and dangerous as the rotten apples brigade.

 

I agree on the part you say that most scientist are genuine.
If you read the long articles above you will see that the author also agrees on that they are "true beleivers" and not corrupt confabulators.

AND THAT IS WHAT IS MOST TERRIFYING

What is worst than a believer?
A fanatic.

A criminal will eventualy get undone. A fanatic dies fighting and the means justify the ends. We will never see the true conspirators and real authors of this massive fraud. We will ever only see the true believers on both sides.

And it is behind one or the other that we, you and me, must align. We must take the side we like better because we can not run our own experiments.
You like the pope, you become a catholic.
I dislike the pope so I became a protestant...allow the comparison.

As for why I chose to believe those who claim CO2 is not affecting the climate?
Well I suppose that 5 years at university studying climatology among other subjects must have tickled my interest in this, but mainly because the Pope's partisans, get paid and their grants depend on them accepting that man made CO2 produces global warming. The protestant, are losing their jobs and grants and being despised by their peers for speaking against it.

I suppose I like to line up with the underdog.

 

Yes , most of us do......

yes sure...I don`t believe they are ( fanatics )

The stakes are too high to make it the deciding factor , or a mistake.

No easy answers.

 

Relax and enjoy your boat, electric or diesel or petrol don't matter. We will laugh at all this in a few decades over a beer.

Will it be Hahn Light, VB or Tiger beer?



PS
My new Kubota V1505 arrived today from the states and will be shipped to Queensland for marinisation tomorrow.
It will cost just under half what I would have to pay for a new marinised enigne in OZ.

Yepee

 

What ? How much was shipping ?

 

Sorry, I did not word that very well.
Bought a new engine in the US, shipped it here, will truck to Queensland to fit marinisation kit, adaptor, plate and gearbox. All up half price even after GST. Shipping alone aprox $US 500