>Shortly after the Climategate scandal broke and I’d had a chance to go through the documents released I described it as the greatest scientific scandal of all time.
The Climate Taliban have been in denial about what Climategate means and the defensive lines seems to be that, yes, mistakes were made but it doesn’t undermine the overall scientific support for the climate change thesis.
The scientist at the centre of Climategate is Phil Jones. He had such credibility within the climate community that he was a contributing author to Chapter 12, Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes, of the Third Assessment Report (2001) and a Coordinating Lead Author of Chapter 3, Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change, of the Fourth Assessment Report (2007).
In this latter role Jones wielded a lot of power and had the ability to control the direction of the report.
So his credibility matters. A lot.
Now it has come out that not only did his climate group at the University of East Anglia ‘hide the decline’ in the post 1960 ‘spaghetti graph’ of temperature that is pervasive throughout climate literature but they also manipulated the starting point of the series in order to eradicate an inconvenient result – in pink below – as demonstrated by the one man climate science truth finder, Steve McIntyre:
How amazing is that?
What sort of scientist goes to work knowing that what they’re putting forward is a complete fraud?
If Phil Jones can’t be honest with what his own team is putting forward then how can we trust anything he’s allowed into the Fourth Assessment Report?
More importantly, how could it survive peer review? Aren’t we repeatedly told that peer review in climate science is beyond reproach? If that’s really the case then why do so many critical errors and fabrications continue to be discovered? It’s as if the peer review process is either a sham or is carried out be people who accept the science and don’t look too hard.
I have a theory that climate science has attracted a large number of mediocre scientists over the years simply because there’s a lot of funding to be had and, critically, there’s no demand to prove what they’re doing is true. How else can climate models have a zero percent prediction rate yet the people who create them are held in high regard within the climate community? There is so little scientific skill that scientists simply trust each other’s work.
The worst part is that the mainstream media will completely ignore yet another piece of proof that climate science is a corrupt, inaccurate discipline that has been taken over by scientific hacks seeking money and prestige, and environmental activists wanting to use it for political advantage.
>Looking for an indicator that there is a large percentage of the population that learned nothing in school, knows no history and is unable to assess risk?
Check out the current result of today’s ninemsn poll:
Here’s a brief pictorial reminder:
Can someone please explain to me how it is possible that 25% of respondents think that climate change is worse than nuclear war…?
Here’s another question.
Which side of politics do you think the ‘no’ voters predominately represent? And why? And shouldn’t that side be thoroughly ashamed of itself?
The 25% of Australian respondents to the ninemsn poll have soulmates in the US…
Just 30% of U.S. voters have at least some confidence in the ability of the United Nations to combat terrorism, with nine percent (9%) who are very confident.
But a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that more than twice as many voters (68%) lack confidence in the U.N. to deal with the threat of terrorism. Thirty-nine percent (39%) describe themselves as not very confident, and another 29% are not at all confident.
The United Nations has NO DESCRIPTION OF TERRORISM for crapsake!!!! How the heck are they supposed to fight it???? What are these 30% thinking…????
>Krumhorn reminds me in comments to review the latest nail in the climate astrology coffin being banged in by Steve McIntyre. Namely, the fabrication that is Keith Briffa’s Yamal data set.
For the uninitiated, the Yamal tree ring data set is a critical requirement in order to create a temperature Hokey Stick of the type first introduced in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report and made iconic by Al Gore’s bullcrap fantasy An Inconvenient Truth.
Climate ‘science’ is a corpse only being kept alive by those whose noses are stuffed firmly in the trough of public funding.
The divergence between the data available and what Briffa chose to use is not the only divergence in the climate astrology debate.
The greater divergence is between what the science is telling us and what our political masters are doing about it.
On the one hand it is becoming more and more obvious that CO2 has a negligible impact on our climate and that solar influences is doing all of the dirty work while on the other the world’s major emitters are pushing the climate hot potato around and proposing more and more expensive solutions hoping to trap their trading partners into having to make concessions.
The Chinese have played a corker of a hand. Forgot the World Poker Tour, these guys out-poker everyone. They’ve now offered to reduce CO2 emissions per unit of GDP.
Ha! Gotcha, US and Europe!
That means they can simply proceed as per current course and speed while forcing the US and Europe to impose a financial burden that can only work to the benefit of China (and India, Russia, Brazil etc).
Meanwhile, our erstwhile economic wrist slashing politicians here at home continue to bang on about introducing an emissions trading scheme in advance of any decision at Copenhagen.
What a pack of immoral bastards.
It shows how incompetent our opposition is that they can’t come up with the morally correct position, which is to explicitly state that they are not going to support the loss of any Australian jobs until the rest of the world has a concrete agreement.
The way things are working out now China, India and Russia etc will get rewarded for having kept their populations in penury for decades due to their socialist governments, as well as pay no price for the use of technology developed by the West.
Excuse me while I work out how to rationalise all that.
>Computer teacher Tim Lambert has a history of beclowning himself when it comes to analysing those things he disagrees with.
For example, he denies there’s a UN ban on DDT and, anyway, even if there isn’t then mosquitoes are resistant to it so there’s no point using it.
Facts, you see, are not one of Lambert’s strong points.
DDT is listed as a persistent organic pollutant by the UN and if a country wants WHO funding then they can only get it if they don’t use DDT.
Lambert does not believe this is the case. One of my close relatives was directly involved in the issue, working in Africa and representing the UN. What he told me, and showed me, proves Lambert and other DDT detractors dead wrong. When my relative retires from working and is not subject to the blowback of disclosure then I’ll give the details.
Anyhow, Lambert has undertaken to critique Ian Plimer’s new book, Heaven and Earth, subjecting it to exactly the sort of scrutiny they should be undertaking on anything produced by Hansen, the Hokey Stick team, Lonnie Thompson and the rest of the useless scientists that support the IPCC’s ridiculous position on global warming.
Sales of Heaven and Earth
Reaction to Ashley’s review of Plimer
An astronomer reviews Ian Plimer’s book
The Australian’s War on Science 38: more denial from Ian Plimer
Ian Plimer ‘can not recall’ where his graph came from
Plimer does the Gish gallop
Ian Plimer and the health effects of mercury poisoning from land mines
The science is missing from Ian Plimer’s “Heaven and Earth”
The fact that the left has reacted so violently, and irrationally, to the success of Heaven and Earth demonstrates how worried they are that the so called science supporting their position is about to be exposed for the sham it is.
Lambert is a self professed computer expert and I have no doubt he has a fair bit of skill in that area.
Why doesn’t he analyse how climate models are created and why they have a zero percent successful forecasting rate?
That would be the intellectually honest thing to do if he really wanted to make a contribution.
>Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology at the University of Adelaide and confirmed curmudgeon, released his new book Heaven and Earth: Global Warming the Missing Science only a few days ago. The first two runs of 5000 sold out in just two days and it’s into its 3rd run; and that’s even before Amazon puts it on sale, which they have scheduled for May 1 – an appropriate day given that the world’s socialists and the Climate Faithful are soulmates.
Which begs the question – has there ever been a faster selling book dealing with climate change than Plimer’s?
Youtube gets rightly condemned for censoring content showing Israel in a good light and Islam in a bad light, as it should be. Given the preponderence of Democrat Party members on the Google board it comes as no surprise that such activity goes on.
However, without Youtube we also wouldn’t have such easy access to the Inconvenient Truth destroying presentation given by Plimer recently. Make sure you show it to all of your believing friends.
One of the arguments that Climate Astrologers put forward to support their claim that the planet is in peril is that “this is different” to what has happened historically due to man’s influence.
My answer to that is that if it really is different then why spend all that time studying the climate before the Industrial Revolution?
It’s drivel, of course, but as with all leftists they’re too busy forming opinions to spend any real time studying facts.
>It comes as a big, huge non-surprise that only 34% of US voters now believe that global warming is caused by human activity.
This will come as a body blow to the credibility of Climate Astrologers, whose public opinion models had suggested that support would continue to grow.
From what I consider to be the best pollster in the US, Rasmussen, comes this survey:
Just one-out-of-three voters (34%) now believe global warming is caused by human activity, the lowest finding yet in Rasmussen Reports national surveying. However, a plurality (48%) of the Political Class believes humans are to blame.
The Political Class are greater believers than Average Joe? Imagine that. It’s clear that Average Joe has a better handle on both the science and reality than politicians.
Forty-eight percent (48%) of all likely voters attribute climate change to long-term planetary trends, while seven percent (7%) blame some other reason. Eleven percent (11%) aren’t sure.
These numbers reflect a reversal from a year ago when 47% blamed human activity while 34% said long-term planetary trends.
Most Democrats (51%) still say humans are to blame for global warming, the position taken by former Vice President Al Gore and other climate change activists. But 66% of Republicans and 47% of adults not affiliated with either party disagree.
I find it astonishing that only 51% of Democrats blame humans for warming. That can’t bode well for the support they’ll need to push through an emissions trading scheme.
Sixty-two percent (62%) of all Americans believe global warming is at least a somewhat serious problem, with 33% who say it’s Very Serious. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s a not a serious problem. The overall numbers have remained largely the same for several months, but the number who say Very Serious has gone down.
Forty-eight percent (48%) of Democrats say global warming is a Very Serious problem, compared to 19% of Republicans and 25% of unaffiliateds.
President Obama has made global warming a priority for his administration. Half (49%) of Americans think the president believes climate change is caused primarily by human activity. This is the first time that belief has fallen below 50% since the president took office. Just 19% say Obama attributes global warming to long-term planetary trends.
Forty-eight percent (48%) rate the president good or excellent on energy issues. Thirty-two percent (32%) give him poor grades in this area.
These are hardly strong numbers for Obama.
Sixty-three percent (63%) of adults now say finding new sources of energy is more important than reducing the amount of energy Americans currently consume. However, 29% say energy conservation is the priority.
A growing number of Americans (58%) say the United States needs to build more nuclear plants. This is up five points from last month and the highest finding so far this year. Twenty-five percent (25%) oppose the building of nuclear plants.
One presumes that even though Average Joe doesn’t know where the rest of the world is he can understand that if France meets 77% of its electricity requirements through nuclear power then the arguments against it can’t be too sound.
While the economy remains the top issue for most Americans, 40% believe there is a conflict between economic growth and environmental protection. Thirty-one percent 31% see no such conflict, while 29% are not sure.
There should be no conflict but the fact is that Big Environment makes sure that one exists. They are a cancer on the underbelly of society.
>The Chinese – the Chinese! – are telling us that we need to “take the lead” on slashing our economic wrists by unilaterally implementing an emissions trading scheme. The world’s largest CO2 emitters!
Check out the article from Fairfax press (true believers, they are, which comes across in the article):
Chinese climate experts have called on rich nations to rein in their “wasteful and luxurious” lifestyles, as they urged Australia to take the lead in tackling climate change.
The only reason that China does not have a much higher standard of living than the developed world is that in 1949 Chairman Mao was victorious and socialist economic policies ran the place. While Mao was trying to take great leaps forward with the result that tens of millions of people starved to death the West was developing new technologies that provided a much higher standard of living.
The experts asked a Canberra conference why China should take strong action on global warming when Australia’s efforts were “insufficient”.
That’s the question.
China has the world’s highest greenhouse gas emissions.
And there’s the answer.
Some Australian commentators say China is largely responsible for cleaning up climate change, but Professor Jiahua Pan from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences turned the tables.
So who is this Professor Pan?
According to his bio he works for the Research Centre for Sustainable Development at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) and from 1999-2001 was:
Senior Economist and acting head at occasions, Technical Support Unit, Working Group III on Mitigation of Climate change, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Bilthoven, The Netherlands
Co-editor and lead author, Climate Change 2001: Mitigation. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report, accepted by governments and published by Cambridge University Press in July 2001.
So he’s simply another one of the IPCC Cabal entrusted by the Chinese government with making sure the finger is pointed at the rest of the world instead of China. Nice.
He said the planet could not afford for countries like Australia and the United States to have such “wasteful and luxurious” lifestyles.
“You have the luxury to emit so much,” Prof Pan said during a frank speech at the Australian National University on Wednesday.
In fact, if Kyoto hadn’t been such a scam and the concept of life cycle accounting hadn’t been knocked on the head (mainly by the Europeans who would have been affected the most at the time) then China would be paying for the emissions that Australia produces in digging minerals out of the ground and sending them to…China.
“For basic necessities, I think that enough is enough … we have only one small planet earth.”
“Basic necessities”? What does that mean? We all get 100g of rice and a fish head to live on each day?
Prof Pan was unimpressed with Australia’s environmental standards, saying public transport seemed poor and the buildings and street lighting were not energy efficient.
Australia’s largest city – Sydney
If Professor Pan – aka the Chinese government – wants us to reduce our “wasteful and luxurious” lifestyle then is he/are they OK with making our cities’ skylines look like China’s?
He labelled as “insufficient” Australia’s pledge to cut greenhouse emissions by five to 15 per cent by 2020.
The Greenies go wild! Cheering and clapping ensues as Pan tells them what they want to hear…
And he urged Australia to sell more uranium to China to boost nuclear power, a request that is being considered.
…and then he delivers the sucker punch, knocking the econuts for six and exposing the cognitive dissonance of their position on nuclear energy.
Prof Pan talked up China’s one-child policy, saying it had helped the planet by avoiding 300 million births.
Now China is claiming that it has actually helped the planet by avoiding 300 million births? The fact that 90% of these births would have been in rural areas and result in the emission of a comparatively tiny amount of CO2 is overlooked.
The Chinese experts called for a global climate pact that would involve each country being allowed to emit a certain amount, based on their populations.
This is ominous for Australia because it has very high per capita emissions, whereas China has fairly low per capita emissions.
Australian climate adviser Ross Garnaut backed the per capita push in a video address to the conference, saying it was fair.
No it’s not. It’s ridiculous. If we were to be fair then perhaps developed countries would have a limit of say, 100 units, and developing nations could have 200. Developed nations, if fairness has any meaning, could then charge developing nations for the creation of technologies that developing countries are now taking advantage of at no cost to themselves. Developed countries have borne the brunt of this innovation so why is it ‘fair’ that developing nations get a free ride? It’s not. Therefore we all get 150 units – which are not able to be traded so that fat hypocrites like Al Gore and most of Hollywood concernarati can’t buy the permits of poor Indians and Chinese – and that’s that.
Federal Climate Change Minister Penny Wong, who was not present for the Chinese experts’ strongly worded remarks, praised the Asian nation’s efforts on global warming.
She said Australia’s 2020 target was “very substantial”.
Senator Wong was cautious about per capita emission allowances, saying it was just one possible approach.
She’s no dummy, this Penny Wong lady. Tough, too.
Meanwhile, it was pistols at dawn at Parliament House as scientists clashed over whether humans were causing climate change.
A Senate inquiry held its first hearing into climate change and what Australia should do about it.
The scientists had to be separated into two groups: the sceptics and the believers.
What? Was there the potential for fisticuffs? Dueling sabres? Pistols?
Bob Carter, a geologist at James Cook University, said there was no evidence carbon dioxide from humans was causing a climate disaster.
He said earth was in a period of “carbon dioxide starvation”, and the climate was changing naturally.
And he’s 100% spot on, as usual.
But six scientists, including a representative from CSIRO, told the hearing that humans were altering the climate. There was plenty of evidence for this, and the vast majority of scientists and scientific academies agreed with the conclusion, they said.
And they’re 90% wrong – they’ve conflated humans altering climate, which land clearing will do, with CO2 emissions, which have little effect. It’s worth noting that these people have received massive amounts of money from the people of Australia by way of taxes over the last 20 years and have a vested interest in maintaining the fraud.
They called on Australia to cut emissions by between 25 and 40 per cent by 2020.
Any less would not ward off dangerous climate change of more than two degrees, they warned.
As I pointed out yesterday, their position is completely immoral, as Australia could take itself back to the stone age and have no effect on its own environment due to China adding Australia’s total output 2-3 times per year.
Nationals senator Ron Boswell objected to the call.
“Some of the figures you guys are throwing around, sitting in your professorships, you’ve probably got $200,000 a year … you’ve got to be practical,” he said.
“You’re going to have an unemployment figure that will go through the roof.”
Not the best person to have represent the side of reason and objectivity, I’d suggest, but he’s right on unemployment.
Greens senator Christine Milne groaned and held her head in her hands at Senator Boswell’s remarks.
Fortunately, misanthropic environut Milne was there to balance things out.
The inquiry continues on Thursday.
What an embarrassment for science and reason.