The Climate Change Hoax

"Judge not, lest ye be judged." I try to live by this, not always successful, but I try. Humor aside. Recess, everyone.

 

Boatfan,

What it is clear that you are failing to grasp is the very insidiousness of the influence of these men, men that you yourself have on the one hand, all but acknowledged engaged in a conspiracy to commit data fraud on a large scale, but then go on to insist that there still must be some substance to the assertions that these men propped up with their fraudulent activities on the basis that all these other scientists can't all be wrong, or some such. You've failed to grasp that found almost exclusively within the ~8 papers of Mann, Briffa, Hansen and Jones, and out of the carefully (and secretly) 'adjusted' data from NASA/GISS and Hadley CRU, springs forth the idea that something anomalous is happening with the climate!

If you discount the works of these men, and consider that these men acting as they are (were in one case) as the directors of their organizations have purposefully slanted both the research and the data from their respective organizations, then you no longer have a case for anthropogenic global warming, as you have yet to clear the first logical hurdle in the debate, which is to show that something, *ANYTHING AT ALL* anomalous is happening with the climate.

Look at the 'state of the art' before the publication of MBH-98: Everyone, including the IPCC, was in agreement that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP)was as warm or warmer than today; it was a difficult sell to state that 20th century warming was somehow worrisome when it had happened before without human intervention, and was by all reports, a pretty nice experience. Of the several hundred temperature reconstructions that studied the period (excluding MBH-98,99) more than 90% agreed with this finding. A few found no evidence of the MWP, but NOT ONE found evidence that refuted the existence of the MWP. The works of Mann, Briffa, Hansen and Jones stand alone in these assertions, and have ALL been thoroughly, irrevocably discredited due to blatant cherry-picking and other problems. The debunking of these papers happened years ago, BTW, long before the hacked emails surfaced. Indeed, it was the publication of these papers that ultimately led to the email scandal, as it was the publication of MBH-98 that prompted skeptics to demand to see the full raw data and algorithms used. Of course they never fully complied, and would be stonewalling the requests TO THIS DAY were it not for the release of these emails.


If you discount these guys works, then you no longer have a case for AGW, simple as that.

Jimbo

 

I agreed to acknowledge the above , for the sake of argument only ,

All I can say is your`e kidding , right ?
When you are shown you just deny .

As the whole world knows.

To suggest the world at large has been hoodwinked and ( gathered in Denmark as we speak ,) entirely on one giant hoax is ludicrous.

Just dismiss the entire world as a bunch of naive hood winked fools if you must ,I don`t care at all.

 

OK smart guy; put up or shut up. Show/cite for us a temperature recon that does not depend on works or data from these organizations that REFUTES the existence of the MWP. There's plenty of recons out there so that should be a simple task, no? Bring us back a bucket of compression, while you're out

A consensus existed for sure, a consensus that the MWP was as warm or warmer than 20th century warming. Only the works of Mann, Briffa, Hansen and Jones challenged that consensus, but these emails are the final nails in the coffin built by McKitrick & McIntyre, with Wegman closing the lid on this challenge.

Show us your data that refutes what I've said here.

Jimbo

 

Go to Denmark.
Tell the entire world.

See what they tell you . Listen to what they have to say.

Then deny it all , as you already have.That is your choice. And belief.

Personally , I do have more faith in them , and what they have to say , rather than you , ok ?

 

So even in the face of their revealed fraud, you choose to believe the scientifically unsupportable assertions of your chosen leaders. Fair enough.

As I said earlier in the thread, don't even try to argue the science; since you are scientifically illiterate (at least on this subject), you can't. Just admit that you don't understand the science (and have apparently little motive to try to do so), but you have put FAITH in your chosen leaders, men who agree with your own worldview.

Science be damned!

Jimbo

 

I put my faith in people who have spent the best part of their productive lives
understanding a very complex phenomena , jimbo.

I would not even consider these people`s findings as

, because they are the experts , jimbo , not me.....or you for that matter...

What are your qualifications to challenge their "scientifically unsupportable assertions ?"

Where is your personal data and research ?
What qualifies you to judge the chaff from the grain ?

 

What qualifies anyone? Did you consider yourself 'qualified' to judge matters of complex military intelligence when the 'experts' made their judgments with which you took exception?

Here's a profound axiom for you to chew on:

Understanding=Qualification

How about you; Do YOU understand?

Do you understand that these very people you trust, the leaders of the IPCC, once agreed that it was warmer 1000 years ago than it is today? Do you further understand that the very scientists who are at the center of the 'climategate' scandal stand virtually alone in their assertion that this wasn't so? Do you understand that these men steadfastly refused to FULLY release the data and algorithms from which their controversial assertions were drawn (as the peer-review protocols demand) FOR 12 YEARS? Do you understand that they conspired to DESTROY the raw data rather than release it?

Do you understand that these men made these assertions on the shakiest of evidence, in one pivotal case having but ONE SINGLE TREE as a proxy?

Do you understand that if their assertions are found to be wrong NOW, then they were ALWAYS wrong, and that therefore 20th century climate falls well within the scope of natural variation?

Pesky MWP

Jimbo

 

Do you understand that climate change theory and the concept of man-made global warming weren't invented by one lab in England, and forced onto the rest of the scientific community at the point of a gun? And that if you successfully invalidated everything that group has ever said and done, the subject still wouldn't go away?

Your argument is about as rational as that of the person who says, "a preacher in the next town over got caught lying about what's in the Bible, so I know there's no God."

 

I trust no one. Least of all "our leaders ".

As far as politicians go , well ...read any of my posts containing reference to them , and you will not find anything sympathetic or kind.Anywhere.

Your reference to them once sharing an opposite view , well , if nothing else , it shows that they were open to review , further research ,and not set in a rigid dogmatic rut. Not a great claim......

Like I already said before , when Dr John Snow suspected the link of cholera and contaminated water his peers rejected it outright.
It was not long before they reached consensus.Consensus is not infallible of course , but has a reasonably good track record , over all.



As to my question :

What are your qualifications to challenge their"scientifically unsupportable assertions ?"
Your answer of "What qualifies anyone?" is , well , let us just say
" embarrassingly evasive "... We have all worked out why , I`m sure.
That`s ok too jimbo ,I`m not qualified either , like you ,
as I have already said.

There we have it : You are in no way qualified to dismiss any scientific findings , one way or the other , so you have opinion.

I have opinion too. We all have opinion....

So here I am , no faith in " our leaders " ,( whatsoever )
with my opinion ,
going with consensus.

And ,there you are going with minority conspiracy theory , your opinion ,
against consensus.
We makes our choices .......

 

Yes, I hear you...well not realy but sort of.

When in theory any claim can be made, you have to look into the history of this fabulous tale.

It started with Margaret Tatcher who needed to discredit coal in favour of nuclear and defeat a miners strike. Paid to be invented.

It followed by ALG picking it up and broadcasting it into a world wide movement, galvanising all that is green and enviro whatever in the way. An incredible achievement interestingly fuelled by large amounts of money from big business that see in this and rightly so, a gigantic cash cow. Followed by all things left who see in this something to do after the fall of comunism.

The protest started all too little and all too late. You could hardly reverse the roles here.
My words that it does not matter if true or false you took them out of context. I say it does not matter for the purpose of creating a "save the world" movement with a pope at the head and all the priest following. Like with all religions, the truth is irrelevant, it is the belief that counts. The earth is the center of the universe and if you deny this you are anathema and will be arrested ... eppur si muove.

We can of course argue and you say it is true and I say it is wrong, and that is our opinion and we can support our points of view in a more or less credible manner.
I think I said this before, I have chosen the protestant side because they are going out on a limb to support their version that it is all a con. The pope side like I call it, hope no one gets offended, gets paid generously and their grants and funds DEPEND from them supporting this version of events, yes yes of course the emperor is clothed nad the coths are green and yellow, how nice! Hardly a position to be credible if you get paid to show me.
I have been accused many times to be paid by the oil companies to blog against global warming. I wish there was any truth in it, I wish there woud be any money in writing my thoughts. Of course there is none for me. May be someone does get paid and good luck to him. For every dollar that is paid to support the no sayers, thousnads are paid with bells and wistles to the dooms day supporters and no one says a word about that payment. Alomst as if there is virtue in the Global warming alarmist side and there is evil in those who call for a more conservative apprach. Go figure!

Hoever ... the big players laugh at our efforts since they have already won and created a big socio-political-religious international cult, "the church of climatology" and all deniers are sinners to be stoned to death with recycled concrete

 

Leave the bible bashers out of this Marco ....

BTW ...is Tom Cruise a member ? Travolta ?the Pope ?


PS I hated Thatcher ...still do ....

 

Jimbo,

Climate Change has become a religion....you cannot change the minds of those that do not wish to listen...I am a shooter here in Australia....we have been ostracised and demonised just the same as anyone that wishes to express an opinion different to the "current" media push....we had a young lady politician here (Pauline Hanson), she expressed concern about the system, no way could either of the two parties allow her to continue, she was gaining enormous power here for a while till the media stooges and the pollies shut her down.....anyone that disagrees, please READ EXACTLY what she says, not what she was reported to have said, and you may have your eyes opened.......but I doubt it.

 

The media stooges and the pollies did shut Pauline Hanson down yes ,but her inexperience
in politics certainly helped. Her One Nation party lacked suitable talent to support her..
Some of her ideas were like fresh air.Others not so hot.

They had to shut her down. She " rocked their dinghy "

 

[FONT=tahoma,verdana,arial]Former chief policy analyst, Division A Policy, DG XVII Energy, European Commission
December 9, 2009[/FONT]

Global Warming versus No Global Warming
If there is no global warming (GW) why support actions to prevent or limit human-caused emissions of GW gases and particulates or aerosols ? Unfortunately for the sceptics, both sides in the climate change debate have substantial theoretical credibility and supporting scientific evidence. Modelling and forecasting planetary change of a 'simple thing' like daily weather requires the largest computing power outside the world's military. Weather forecasts are not always right, and usually there are few excuses offered by national and world weather forecasting institutions when they get their daily forecast scenarios wrong. In no way does this mean we lose all faith in computing power, and return to bark strips or tea leaves for weather forecasting, although removal of 'offending' tree ring data by GW researchers and theorists, because its 'performance' in showing constant GW was disappointing, is also too radical.
Exactly the same applies to intervention or non-intervention in global, regional and national energy economies. This can use a business application of systems thinking: the "marginal" concept used in business planning, which starts with a comparison of risks and probabilities for each action, at and for a certain time, and with various degrees of investment spending or intensity of action. If we take actions to reduce greenhouse gases, but find later on that human GW was actually insignificant or less than we feared, our net loss would be the cost of these actions, as well as hypothetical alternate uses for the same resources through the same period.
We however have another and much more certain driver for transiting away from fossil fuels and developing alternate and renewable sources and systems: Peak Oil, qnd the sure and certain depletion of the easiest and largest reserves and sources of oil, coal and gas. As with population control to limit the demographic crisis, this is another politically incorrect, carefully avoided driver for alternate energy, but in no ways prevents it from being real. Large spending to force energy transition away from fossil fuels and other resource conserving features of "the green economy" will also generate the benefit of earlier substitution of non-renewable resources in the economy, causing a situation very similar to that when coal started substituting wood as a major industrial heat source, or petroleum oil started substituting whale oil for street lighting.
If we take no action, the laisser faire path, there will inevitably be higher future monetary costs, and lost options, for correcting or mitigating the higher level of accumulated damage to our planet. Running out of oil will no longer be a theoretical graph curve, but a reality. Comparing the consequences of these two extreme alternatives (no action versus massive action) it is very apparent that the most basic lever for change - depletion of fossil fuels and need for alternate energy - will become more critical and costs will rise radically, if we do not soon act to replace non-renewable fossil fuels. This will probably be joined by action to cap and then reduce world total commercial energy utilization, preceded by this option becoming politically correct and able to be discussed. Not taking action, now, only pushes forward the date when we, or our descendents will have to take action. Calculating the 'opportunity cost' of different policy sets or ensembles will tend to show we have plenty to gain with little to lose by taking action now.

A Few Conclusions

The pace of events in climate change alarm, and G20 government climate-related energy and economic policy (with environment soon to enter), all tend to underline the critical lack of coherent and mutually-reinforcing policy sets or ensembles. In addition, the lack of any real global financing framework or system for green energy transition will likely deliver even lower success or 'bang for the buck', than the complex, speculative, limited and specialized 'semi private', but in fact public-private, financing frameworks typified by emissions cap-and-trade. This could be called a worst case mix of public policy irresponsibility and incompetence, and private sector opacity and greed.

To be sure every possible financing method and process can be suggested. Mass issuance of 'citizen energy credits' is suggested by several NGOs and associations. The other extreme is similar. The two extremes meet in an increasingly possible IMF-managed creation and issuance of a new world money, the "CO2 Bancor", at least nominally restricted to energy-and-climate financing, but also designed to relieve pressure on the US dollar as world reserve money.

Green energy financing by strict market-only mechanisms is unlikely, now, simply because public expectations have risen fast with political grandstanding by G20 leaders, and because oil depletion will not wait another 5 years or more, for trial-and-error to eliminate inefficient and low net energy candidates, such as crop base fuel ethanol. By 2015, loss of world oil export capacity could reach 2.5 Mbd a year, about the present total import need of South Korea or Germany, yet world biofuels production growth is at best a few hundred thousand barrels/day each year. We are forced to conclude that costs and time requirements for free market trial-and-error policy and programme selection are too high. This is due to accumulated impacts of past inaction, notably the long period of cheap oil through 1986-2000, and through market mediated wrong choices, shifting too many resources to poor energy performers, while starving potential high performers of resources needed for their sustained development.

Probably the key factor for ensuring sufficiently rapid and reliable transition away from the fossil fuels and global capping of greenhouse gas and particulate emissions by around 2035 is policy. Present policy making in the energy, economy, and environment plus climate fields remains sector focused, often firewall separated, generating mutual antagonism and weakening of initiatives and programmes implemented. Apart from not attaining initial goals, programme costs are raised by unnecessary duplication of single-sector policies that soon lose credibility. The default solution is often abandon of the policy, major financial and economic loss, and the start of a new cycle of ad hoc 'solutions'.

The real answer is simple to identify but difficult to apply: coherent policy ensembles of convergent or non-antagonistic programmes, implemented only after comprehensive study of all single policy interactions and elimination of unproductive policy sets. Regional and national effort will be prime in setting these ensembles, with regional and national financing and funding mechanisms dovetailed into global frameworks, for example through reinforced versions of currently emerging climate-related aid and assistance to most affected low income countries. In this way, the goal of setting and achieving long term transformation and transition of the economy and society will have a higher chance of being realised.

story end
© 2009 Andrew McKillop
Editorial Archive