From The Sunday Times, November 29, 2009
“Climate change data dumped” tells us that the East Anglia clique have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based; which means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

In another feature entitled “The great climate change science scandal” The Times talks of “leaked emails that have revealed the unwillingness of climate change scientists to engage in a proper debate with the sceptics”; while in another piece, “The great climate change science scandal” the paper talks about the original computer hack of East Anglia’s CRU emails that suggest that CRU boss Phil Jones and some colleagues, may have become so convinced of their case that they crossed the line from objective research into active campaigning ha! Ha! ha!

Why is this information not featured in our debate here? Why is it not splashed all over the papers, on the ABC news shows ? And why is the case of the Opposition being misrepresented?

If the public knew that there was a cloud over all of the data then surely they would be wondering why Turnbull and Rudd must have a result before Copenhagen at which time the whole farce is likely to have been exposed.

But, the answer is going to embarrass Australia. China are going hard on their renewables program, and even barring the 3 Gorges (which lots of people view as a wild ecological disaster) they will lead the world in renewables installed in the next few years.

Australia on the other hand is paying their coal generators to stay open.

Anyone actually punched the numbers? How much could we buy all the brown coal generators (and that one in Adelaide, Hazelwood?) for, close them and replace with peaking gas turbines?

We know Brian’s insane response to what were rhetorical questions posed to and addressed in response to Ed.

Yes to all the following and a few even more extreme questions:

“Do you want Rudd to halt immigration?
Do you, like Clive Hamilton, want a totalitarian government to lower CO2 emissions?
Do you, like John Holdren, want to add a contraceptive to the water supply?
Do you believe that the millions whose lives improve as they obtain electricity for the first time this year and the next 50 years because of coal should be prevented from getting it?”

Personally I find the Brian Kellys of this world and their mouth foaming hateful insanity thoroughly sickening.

Greed and overpopulation are the main causes of the degredation, including climate change, of this planet. Perhaps we could solve both problems by culling the greedy, the flat earthers and
man-made climate change denialists.

Vincent Gray on Climategate: ‘There Was Proof of Fraud All Along’ (PJM Exclusive)
IPCC expert reviewer Gray — whose 1,898 comments critical of the 2007 report were ignored — recently found that proof of the fraud was public for years.

November 27, 2009 - by Vincent Gray
“Nothing about the revelations surprises me. I have maintained email correspondence with most of these scientists for many years, and I know several personally. I long ago realized that they were faking the whole exercise.”

Here is the link if you can be to click it.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/vincent-gray-on-climategate-there-was-proof-of-fraud-all-along-pjm-exclusive/

Meanwhile Rudd/Turnbull are in cahoots to pass legislation that will cost the Australian people a min of $124 billion over the ensuing decade with no benefit to be had, in isolation, for the environment even if you accept Jones and his colleagues hook, line and sinker.

Imagine the practical environmental good that a quarter of that money invested wisely could do?

And now confidence has to be restored or created in the consensus scientific view of anthropogenic gases being the cause of a runaway warming before passing similar legislation anywhere.

It means these guys might be shonky operators. Fair enough. It means some of their conclusions should be re-compared to the data. But, unlike what a lot of excited internet commentators state, there is nothing in here that can overturn the whole theory. The number of observations is outrageous.

But heh ok…. I’ll bite:

Pajamasmedia is an internet news organisation. It has reporters, internet tv news and opinion interviews, internet radio and the usual written op-eds and reports. The reporter here was actually a scientist to boot. What’s your problem Evan?

For instance what part of :

“All the manipulation, distortion and suppression revealed by these emails took place because it would seem these scientists knew their belief was not only correct but unchallengeable; and so when faced with evidence that showed it was false, they tried every which way to make the data fit the prior agenda. And those who questioned that agenda themselves had to be airbrushed out of the record, because to question it was simply impossible. Only AGW zealots get to decide, apparently, what science is. Truth is what fits their ideological agenda. Anything else is to be expunged. … [W]hat we are dealing with here is the totalitarian personality. One thing is now absolutely clear for all to see about the anthropogenic global warming scam: science this is not.”

…..do disagree with and why?

In terms of your question, I have to say I’m staggered with your ignorance. This is the heart of this scandal. Indeed the IPCC AR4 report more than any other IPCC review is called into question with this data and email released by a whistleblower.

Among the IPCC elite embarrassingly, if not criminally, compromised is Phillip D. Jones, a Ph.D. climatologist at the University of East Anglia whose work figured prominently in the IPCC Third Assessment Report of 2001. Jones also contributed significantly to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 (AR4), but he failed to follow through when skeptical investigators asked to review raw data associated with that report. They announced intent to use UK Freedom of Information laws to obtain the data, so Jones sent the following e-mail to one of his collaborators: “Mike, Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise…. Can you also e-mail Gene and get him to do the same?… Will be getting Caspar to do likewise.” The Mike in this message is Michael Mann, professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University, whose influential “hockey stick” graph warning of pending global warming eco-catastrophe was found by a congressional investigation to be fraudulent. In another correspondence about AR4 labeled HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, Jones contacted Mann regarding research critical of their global warming platform. “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” wrote Jones. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Now Evan Beaver. This “bunch of ambiguous emails” may not quite “disprove chapter 1” but it certainly casts a pall of, dare I say, scepticism. Does it not?

Mind you if you rely on Crikey, The Age, SMH and ‘Your’ ABC you would be ignorant of these matters. And you are.

Perhaps the internet Evan? You could start with Pajamasmedia………..

But the point stands; all this talk of emails and Average Global Temperature trends are the worst type of straw men. Anyone that mentions average global temperature trends doesn’t know what they’re talking about. It’s the almost 30,000 observations that the climate is warming that is the problem Regardless of the politics of the IPCC and how this plays out as an average global temp graphs, these observations can not be refuted with rhetoric. Someone needs to go through and prove that all of these studies were wrong.

I think the reason we even talk about Ave temps and the Hockey Stick is because the denialists realise they can’t actually get their teeth into this, without something to rail against. Hence the focus on the Hockey stick and the ‘cooling since 1998 meme’. The Climate Change theory is not ‘is putting more CO2 in the atmosphere making the global average temperature go up every year’; which seems their goal to disprove. Anyone even remotely familiar with the IPCC work will realise this is but a Red Herring. The actual theory is more like ‘is changing the chemistry of the atmosphere fiddling with natural systems in a bad way’. The evidence supporting this theory is enormous, and virtually impossible to disprove.

See below from Eduoardo Zorita’s site:
http://coast.gkss.de/staff/zorita/myview.html

Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process
Eduardo Zorita, November 2009

“Short answer: because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.

“A longer answer: My voice is not very important. I belong to the climate-research infantry, publishing a few papers per year, reviewing a few manuscript per year and participating in a few research projects. I do not form part of important committees, nor I pursue a public awareness of my activities. My very minor task in the public arena was to participate as a contributing author in the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.
By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication. My area of research happens to be the climate of the past millennia, where I think I am appreciated by other climate-research ‘soldiers’. And it happens that some of my mail exchange with Keith Briffa and Timothy Osborn can be found in the CRU-files made public recently on the internet.

“I may confirm what has been written in other places: research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion, as any reader can interpret from the CRU-files. They depict a realistic, I would say even harmless, picture of what the real research in the area of the climate of the past millennium has been in the last years. The scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas.

These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. But I am also aware that in this thick atmosphere -and I am not speaking of greenhouse gases now- editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations,even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the ‘politically correct picture’. “

Read it for yourself!

Crumbled to fairy dust? That seems a little premature to me, a little shrill perhaps. Like the way Turnbull tried to prosecute the Grech email affair. He recognised he only had one chance before the true nature was revealed and went for it, all guns blazing. The right recognise this for what it is; inconclusive unrelated email traffic. They’re trying everything they can to gain some points from this.

Explain this. How do a bunch of ambiguous emails disprove chapter 1 here, which contains a summary of 29,500 observations that the climate is being changed by human actions.

Not that I diagree over closing the LaTrobe valley generators. Would cost less and give more benefits than the CPRS.

I’ll tell how ridiculous this has become. Rudd and Turnbull are now saying that if we don’t go to Copenhagen with this bum tax plan for Australia ratified, this country will burn up by next February. Just look how hot it was today for example!
Well even the non- scientific public smells a rat.

Think past your rhetoric all you ad homonym attack dogs for just 30 seconds. Don’t you ever ask yourselves “Why so anxious Two Dogs?” Doesn’t it strike you as a bit odd? Why is the Australian tail wagging the UN dog unless that is what Rudd and Turnbull have promised to deliver to their UN masters. An agreement; any agreement. I cannot explain the vituperation otherwise.

Before you turn your barbarous tongues on me and start with that incessant ni! ni! ni; let me state for the record that while I hate all manner of chemicals, chemical dyes, fumigants, artificial colours and flavours, sprays, fumes, soot and traditional carbon particles, poisons and petroleum based products (which pretty much keeps me out of supermarkets), and just about anything that damages the planet; I ask that we leave the C02 for the plants because they need it.

By the way, the same global governance Nazis who a pushing this global tax cr@p, have been busy selling off the world’s lungs, polluting the rivers and oceans and doing just about anything they can to screw the place while ensuring that they get little argument from the locals. But the Third World isn’t as willing to buy into this charade as they once did and many are saying nyet.

Anyway back to Turnbull; who seems to me to be determined to drag down the entire parliamentary system as if it were his alternative brief, if he can’t deliver to the hidden hand on the big climate scare campaign.

You have to wonder why it is not possible to allow that half of the party who are really not convinced about the perils of C02 to have their senate enquiry, especially given all of the new material that has come to light, as well as the polls which show most people just don’t understand. Well, they’ll understand soon enough when they get additional taxes slapped on everything that will make the GST look like a library fine.

Not a word about that from Mr. Turnbull, just scare mongering about how if Australians don’t do this and that, we will disappear into the flames of hell by tomorrow or next week at the latest. People believed these jokers as if they were somehow trustworthy.
Never trust the State if you want your children to wake up free tomorrow. Since Federation, the State has acquired more and more power at greater and greater cost to us in return for less and less – just ask the Aborigines what they are getting for the money being spent? In this latest charade, you are witnessing the handing over of the last of our sovereignty to the UN.

Who do you want to run this country? The Australian people or the UN? I think we already know Malcolm Turnbull’s and Kevin Rudd’s answer.

Do you believe governments can manage the planet’s climate?
If the industrial revolution never happened then would you be happy?
Are you suggesting we have polluted air in Australia as a result of coal fire generators?

If so, provide the evidence.
Provide evidence for irreversible damage as a result of coal fired generators here in Australia.

It is not that I speak for pollution.
Funnily enough I want a healthy environment for the ensuing generations.
Who but a psychopath wouldn’t?

Is it the land?
Do you want Rudd to halt immigration?
Do you, like Clive Hamilton, want a totalitarian government to lower CO2 emissions?
Do you, like John Holdren, want to add a contraceptive to the water supply?
Do you believe that the millions whose lives improve as they obtain electricity for the first time this year and the next 50 years because of coal should be prevented from getting it?

If you want to reduce Australia’s CO2 emissions considerably then why not simply pay to help the owners of Australia’s two brown coal generators in the LaTrobe Valley to change over to LPG/LNG.

No need for government taxation and interference in every aspect of citizens’ lives. No need for an ETS/CPRS (dishonest version of the same thing). And a fraction of the cost.

You are loud and prolific. I can tell that just by your waffling. Are you right? I don’t know. But it takes a real ‘denialist’ to be able to watch a coal-fired power station for 24 hours, 7 days a week etc. and somehow conclude that the intensity of that pollution will not cause irreconcilable damage to the environment.

For me the recorded/modelled science is somewhat contradictory. The facts of demographics, power generation, manufacturing etc. are not. Exponential growth in these areas is simply not sustainable - if you argue against that you’re deluded. I’ll explain: the size of the earth is finite, water resources are finite and so is the capacity for the earth’s natural environmental systems to cope with gross chemical imbalances. To have the nerve to believe that the earth can cope with the sort of human activity prevalent over the past 200 or so years is bewildering.

No my case is not based on that at all.

You are floundering without an argument Phil.

One of my ‘bumcrack’ references above was a call from Mike Hulme for an end to the IPCC.

Mike Hulme is listed as the 10th most cited author in the world in the field of climate change, between 1999 and 2009.

I see many climate scientists including Eduardo Zorita, Scientist at the Institute for Coastal Research, specialist in Paleoclimatology, Review Editor of Climate Research and IPCC co-author and Dr. Hans von Storch Director of Institute for Coastal Research of the GKSS Research Centre in Geesthacht are now calling for Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf to be removed from the IPCC process.

I see that there will be US Congressional and British Governmental inquiries into the scandal. Another of my bumcrack references.

But you say in effect: ‘move along nothing to see here ..’

There there Phil, you don’t need to let reality interfere with your delusions if you just don’t want it to…..

What I don’t seem to understand is the catastrophist’s lack of common sense on this issue………

The CPRS will cost our economy, damage our international trade
competitiveness, cost jobs, put our future energy security at risk and hurt regional Australia. It will make the average punter poorer, bankers,dealers and lawyers richer and the government more interfering in citiens’ lives than ever before in history.

Living under the Sherrif of Nottingham was better than what Rudd’s proposing. All that without helping to achieve the real objective – a reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions.

And I wouldn’t be boasting about the “body of evidence science is turning out daily” if I were you:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574558070997168360.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_RIGHTTopCarousel

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-its-the-totalitarianism-stupid/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/uea-climate-scientist-possible-that-i-p-c-c-has-run-its-course/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8383713.stm

The nub of the scientific method is rigorous honesty.

All potential and even unconscious personal influence on interpretation of data and recording of data is minimised. How it is minimised forms a significant chunk of any scientific paper in peer reviewed literature.

These AGW science promulgators have several problems.

1. Some like James Hansen have described coal mines as “death trains”.
That means I read his paper with his declared bias in mind. It lowers the credibility of his work. As do many other known facts about James Hansen.

2. This crazy annd intense belief is now clearly ingrained in many of what is in fact a clique.and this clique have demonstrated their willingness to doctor data.

3. They refuse to share their codes to make what is known as metadata. They even refuse to disclose raw data. They refuse to delineate their computer codes. They refuse to demonstrate their weightings of various dataset variables in their computer models.

These people are scientists in name only.

In respect of your argument about “very strong pro or anti stance on any contested issue”. That anti-science.

Moreover political moderate can also mean wishy washy. It can mean a willingness to merely “make what you can out of politics” because moderates are not strong on ideals nor conviction. They are the ones most likely to be corrupt.