Posted on 11/21/2009 5:31:48 AM PST by PapaBear3625
Like the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal, this is the gift that goes on giving. It won’t, unfortunately, derail Copenhagen (too many vested interests involved) or cause any of our many political parties to start talking sense on “Climate change”. But what it does demonstrate is the growing level of public scepticism towards Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. That’s why, for example, this story is the single most read item on today’s Telegraph website.
[...]
But in the case of “Climate Change”, the MSM has been caught with its trousers down. The reason it has been so ill-equipped to report on this scandal is because almost all of its Environmental Correspondents and Environmental Editors are parti pris members of the Climate-Fear Promotion lobby. Most of their contacts (and information sources) work for biased lobby groups like Greenpeace and the WWF, or conspicuously pro-AGW government departments and Quangos such as the Carbon Trust. How can they bring themselves to report on skullduggery at Hadley Centre when the scientists involved are the very ones whose work they have done most to champion and whose pro-AGW views they share?
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...
For instance, all the trillions of gallons of sewage that gets dumped in the oceans, not to mention the garbage. when will the leftists adress that ? ....NEVER. Because government generated pollution is off limits .....and because Big Oil is their Bison and the citizens are their sheep
I agree and I think part of the problem is that so many people trust the scientists on this because they assume that the scientific process is all that is driving this. The problem though, the way I see it anyways, is that so many scientists out there are working on govt funded grants for the purpose of research. If the scientists were to come out and report to the govt that AGW is not real, then the govt will stop the research on it and the scientists lose their govt funded job. They can’t all work for private companies. The incentive is for the outcomes of their research to show AGW is real so they can keep working on it for years and years and milk it for all it’s worth. There really is an air pollution problem in many cities that we could be working to solve but this AGW crap hurts that cause, it doesn’t help it. Those same scientist could have been working all this time on technologies to clean our environment but their efforts and the tax money spent will have been wasted once enough people catch on to this hoax. Sadly, this was never about cleaning up the environment and that’s a shame.
I’ve always said, I don’t concern myself with how people will be ultimately judged by God in the afterlife. It’s enough for me to see people like Al Gore be publicly discredited and humiliated. I do take great joy in that.
How would you like to be in President Obama’s place and realize that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has been in bed with self-serving politicians and totally destroyed the reliability of the scientific community that the federal government and the American people fund to protect our national security?
1. DOE and the Secretary of the Department of Energy still pretending to be unaware of repulsive interactions between neutrons - the primary energy source of the Sun and the cosmos?
2. NASA and its underlings pretending ignorance of mass fractionation in the Sun that selectively moves lightweight elements like H and He into a thin veneer covering its surface?
3. Directors of the Lunar Science Institute whose only claim to fame was their imaginary evidence of Ne-A, Ne-B, Ne-C, Ne-D, Ne-E, etc., etc., instead of admitting that the Sun itself sorts neon isotopes by mass and changes the Ne-20/Ne-22 ratio from 15 to 14 to 13 to 12, to 11, to . . . . 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 ?
All of us and our political leaders - Congressman Jeff Flake, President Obama, etc. - now face a major dilemma. Whom can we trust?
That’s my opinion,
Oliver K. Mnauel
Former NASA PI for Apollo
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09
...continuous ClimateGate bumping...
Just stumbled across your query...
I have a running ( constantly updated as long as new info comes in ) post on this up at our Canadian sister site:
http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=125688
Hadley CRU has apparently been hacked –[epic fraud?]
I note, ironically, that their sub-forum for this:
“Global Warming and Other Junk Sciences” was created many years ago— they called it from the first.
Well, the scientific-Globull Warming community has destroyed itself, or at least the so called scientists involved with this fraud.
They purposely set out to “blacklist” any Scientist who disagreed with their Warming theories. They manipulated public opinion, through false or misleading opinion pieces and held comments on blogs that didn’t agree with their philosophy.
They fed the Media and the politicians a lie and at some point there has to be accountability for the destruction of credibility these low-life money grubbers have perpetrated on the public.
Does anyone know of a list of the remarks gleaned from these e-mails or a list of the e-mails themselves?
I will freepmail it to you, there is a searchable database.
Thanx. I am trying to determine if the changlings have any wiggle room out of this.
Also, it wasn’t all “scientists” that agreed with the Warmers as evidenced by this posting from SEPP and linked here, http://www.sepp.org/
More about ‘Scientific Consensus’
According to the UK Met Office http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/quick/doubts.html
the core climate science from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was written by 152 scientists from more than 30 countries and contributed to and/or reviewed by some 600 experts. Not mentioned, however, is the fact that many of the reviewers disagreed with the IPCC conclusion that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is “very likely” (>90% sure) due to the observed increase in man-made greenhouse gas concentrations.
Also unmentioned is the fact that most of the science of the IPCC report is not controversial. The only crucial chapter is Chapter 9 (on “Attribution”), in which the IPCC attempts to show that 20th century warming was anthropogenic. It was written by only 9 scientists and is dominated by a tightly controlled clique whose members referee each others’ papers and consider ‘attribution studies’ as their private fiefdom.
The NIPCC was set up to break down this monopoly. The NIPCC Summary (2008) and full report (2009) demonstrate that there is no real evidence backing the IPCC conclusion www.NIPCCreport.org.
The following letter, signed by senior physicists, was sent to all 100 U.S. senators on October 29, 2009:
A GAGGLE IS NOT A CONSENSUS
You have recently received a letter from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), purporting to convey a “consensus” of the scientific community that immediate and drastic action is needed to avert a climatic catastrophe.
We do not seek to make the scientific arguments here (we did that in an earlier letter, sent a couple of months ago), but simply note that the claim of consensus is fake, designed to stampede you into actions that will cripple our economy, and which you will regret for many years. There is no consensus, and even if there were, consensus is not the test of scientific validity. Theories that disagree with the facts are wrong, consensus or no.
We know of no evidence that any of the “leaders” of the scientific community who signed the [AAAS] letter to you ever asked their memberships for their opinions, before claiming to represent them on this important matter.
We also note that the American Physical Society (APS, and we are physicists) did not sign the letter, though the scientific issues at stake are fundamentally matters of applied physics. You can do physics without climatology, but you can’t do climatology without physics.
The APS is at this moment reviewing its stance on so-called global warming, having received a petition from its membership to do so. That petition was signed by 160 [by now well over 200] distinguished members and fellows of the Society, including one Nobelist and 12 members of the National Academies. Indeed a score of the signers are Members and Fellows of the AAAS, none of whom were consulted before the AAAS letter to you
This being one of the key statements in the above post, “It was written by only 9 scientists and is dominated by a tightly controlled clique whose members referee each others’ papers and consider ‘attribution studies’ as their private fiefdom.”
There is so much information that has been released, I think the Warmers are toast.
Here are a couple of the more enlightening emails,
From Michael Mann:
Perhaps we’ll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page—Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa ‘06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.
From Phil Jones:
The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! ... The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! Cheers Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !
They haven’t been phased by counter-info so far. I wonder how they will respond revelation of their fraud and when we’ll hear it revealed in Congress.
Thanx. Gotta go for now.
Excellent points!
A friend of mine went to Russia years ago before communism fell and said it was the most depressing,dirty and colorless place they had ever seen.
It is happening now.
I have first hand knowledge that there are teams of scientists and engineers working for the EPA and closely with industries to study and develop methods for improving air quality.
These efforts are not connected with the warming crap and have to do with implementing industry specific process remedies. It is a very large effort. Since the industry is involved, there seems to be some give to assure the change is not irrational or prohibitivly expensive
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.