Monday, 30 November 2009

CLIMATEGATE: When there’s more important things to put on your front page [updated]


Climategate: With 10.6 million hits it’s the most popular search by far on Google, but only a few stories have made the world’s front pages.  In Robert Tracinski’s words “ClimateGate: The Fix is In.”

Nevertheless, here’s some of what made the news pages over the weekend on this rapidly growing story (hat tip Benny Peiser):

  • WALL STREET JOURNAL: "Cap and Trade Is Dead"
    So declares Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, taking a few minutes away from a Thanksgiving retreat with his family. "Ninety-five percent of the nails were in the coffin prior to this week. Now they are all in."
  • TIMES ONLINE (UK): Climate change data dumped
    Scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. It 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.
    The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
  • BBC NEWS: Inquiry into stolen climate e-mails
    BBC News understands that senior individuals at UEA have acknowledged the potential damage to the university's reputation from the CRU affair and are anxious to clear the institution's name.
    But there is a risk that some people will not accept the findings of any inquiry unless it is fully independent, as demanded by the former UK Chancellor Lord Lawson earlier in the week.
    A petition is running on the 10 Downing Street website calling for CRU to be suspended from preparation of any government climate statistics until the allegations have been fully investigated.
  • HERALD SUN (Australia): Making Sweden warmer – Andrew Bolt
    We’ve already seen serious questions raised about the way a warming rise was calculated in New Zealand. Willis Eschenbach now describes how the Climategate scientists misled Sweden’s Professor Wibjorn Karlen about the temperatures over Nordic countries, too, when he asked how the IPCC had produced graphics like these for northern Europe . . .
  • WALL STREET JOURNAL: Rigging a Climate 'Consensus': About those emails and 'peer review.'
    The furor over these documents is not about tone, colloquialisms or whether climatologists are nice people. The real issue is what the messages say about the way the much-ballyhooed scientific consensus on global warming was arrived at, and how a single view of warming and its causes is being enforced. The impression left by the correspondence among Messrs. Mann and Jones and others is that the climate-tracking game has been rigged from the start.
  • SUNDAY TELEGRAPH (UK) Damage Limitation: University of East Anglia Promises to Release Hidden Data
    Leading British scientists at the University of East Anglia, who were accused of manipulating climate change data - dubbed Climategate - have agreed to publish their figures in full.
    The U-turn by the university follows a week of controversy after the emergence of hundreds of leaked emails, "stolen" by hackers and published online, triggered claims that the academics had massaged statistics.
    In a statement welcomed by climate change sceptics, the university said it would make all the data accessible as soon as possible, once its Climatic Research Unit (CRU) had negotiated its release from a range of non-publication agreements.
    The publication will be carried out in collaboration with the Met Office Hadley Centre. The full data, when disclosed, is certain to be scrutinised by both sides in the fierce debate. . .
  • SUNDAY TIMES (UK): There’s Just One Problem: CRU Dumped Climate Data
    SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. It 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.
    The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
    The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
    The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.
    In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”
    The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible. . .
  • DAILY MAIL (UK): BBC Ignores “Leaked” Climate Row Emails
    The BBC has become tangled in the row over the alleged manipulation of scientific data on global warming.
    One of its reporters has revealed he was sent some of the leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia more than a month ago – but did nothing about them.
    Despite the explosive nature of some of the messages – which revealed apparent attempts by the CRU’s head, Professor Phil Jones, to destroy global temperature data rather than give it to scientists with opposing views – Paul Hudson failed to report the story.
    This has led to suspicions that the scandal was ignored because it ran counter to what critics say is the BBC’s unquestioning acceptance in many of its programmes that man-made climate change is destroying the planet. . .
  • SUNDAY TIMES (UK): The Great Climate Change Scandal
    Leaked emails have revealed the unwillingness of climate change scientists to engage in a proper debate with the sceptics who doubt global warming.
    The storm began with just four cryptic words. “A miracle has happened,” announced a contributor to Climate Audit, a website devoted to criticising the science of climate change. “RC” said nothing more — but included a web link that took anyone who clicked on it to another site, Real Climate [a paid-up warmist blog].
    There, on the morning of November 17, they found a treasure trove: a thousand or so emails sent or received by Professor Phil Jones, director of the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich. Jones is a key player in the science of climate change.
    His department’s databases on global temperature changes and its measurements have been crucial in building the case for global warming.
    What those emails suggested, however, was that Jones and some colleagues may have become so convinced of their case that they crossed the line from objective research into active campaigning. . .
  • DAILY TELEGRAPH (UK): The Worst Scientific Scandal of Our Generation – Christopher Brooker
    Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker. . .
    The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). . .
    But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. . .
    The former Chancellor Lord (Nigel) Lawson, last week launching his new think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, rightly called for a proper independent inquiry into the maze of skulduggery revealed by the CRU leaks. But the inquiry mooted on Friday, possibly to be chaired by Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society – itself long a shameless propagandist for the warmist cause – is far from being what Lord Lawson had in mind. Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age.
  • DAILY TELEGRAPH (UK): Climategate e-mails sweep America, may scuttle Barack Obama's Cap and Trade laws
  • THE NEW ECONOMIST: Why Political Orthodoxy Must Not Silence Scientific Argument
    . . . The stakes in the global-warming debate, however, could scarcely be higher. Scientific evidence that climate change is under way, is man-made, and is likely to continue happening forms the foundation for an edifice of policy which is intended to transform the world’s carbon-intensive economy into one which no longer spews greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. A lot of money, and many reputations—both academic and political—are involved.
    Sceptics claim that this burden of responsibility is crushing the spirit of scientific inquiry. Scientists, they maintain, are under pressure to bolster the majority view. The recent publication of embarrassing e-mails from the University of East Anglia, an important centre of climate science (see article), revealing doubts about data and a determination not to air such concerns publicly, has strengthened these suspicions. . .

Further mainstream links gratefully received.

And here’s what some of the better blogs have been saying:

  • Climategate: The Skeptical Scientist’s View
    Frank J. Tipler, professor of mathematical physics at Tulane University, on the true significance of Climategate:
  • The now non-secret data prove what many of us had only strongly suspected — that most of the evidence of global warming was simply made up. That is, not only are the global warming computer models unreliable, the experimental data upon which these models are built are also unreliable. As Lord Monckton has emphasized here at Pajamas Media, this deliberate destruction of data and the making up of data out of whole cloth is the real crime — the real story of Climategate.

    It is an act of treason against science. It is also an act of treason against humanity, since it has been used to justify an attempt to destroy the world economy.

  • Phil Jones has collected a staggering $22.6
    "So far, the most interesting file I found in the "documents" directory is pdj_grant_since1990.xls which shows that since 1990, Phil Jones has collected a staggering 13.7 million British pounds ($22.6 million) in grants.
  • Let the Great Global Warming Cover-Up Begin!
    Now that some enterprising and possibly conscience-stricken soul has served up the emails and other data of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, revealing the deliberate efforts to hide the corrupted research that justifies the “global warming” fraud, all the various journalists and alleged climate scientists who have been a party to it are trying desperately to cover up or minimize the scandal. . .
    The prevailing belief now is that the emails and data were already on a disk that a conscience-stricken CRU staffer decided to make available on the Internet for all to see and examine before it too became “lost.”
    You can be sure, however, that the global warming journalists whose careers have been based on furthering the fraud will continue to emphasize the “hacking” theory to suggest this “stolen” data lacks merit and those using it, the so-called “skeptics” and “deniers” are still not to be trusted. . .
  • More media growing skeptical, notes Climate Depot: Aussie's 'A Current Affair' features scientists mocking man-made climate fears:

  • Climategate: hide the decline – codified
    Blogger Ecotretas . . .  has made a compendium of programming code segments that show comments by the programmer that suggest places where data may be corrected, modified, adjusted, or busted. Some the  HARRY_READ_ME comments are quite revealing. For those that don’t understand computer programming, don’t fret, the comments by the programmer tell the story quite well even if the code itself makes no sense to you.
  • Exactly who was emailing who in Climategate
    This social graph of CRU emails shows how miniscule is this IPCC “power group” if you ponder how many active climatologists there must be globally [click to enlarge the pic]
  • The Deleted Portion of the Briffa Reconstruction
    "Hide the decline" refers to the decline in the Briffa MXD temperature reconstruction in the last half of the 20th century, a decline that called into question the validity of the tree ring reconstructions. . .
  • CRU quietly revising 8 months of 2009 global temperature data
    CRU have just “deleted” – removed 8 months of their CRUT3 monthly anomalies for 2009. Unannounced that I have seen. . .
  • Climategate Round-Up #3
    The leaked CRU emails exposed bad behaviour, the code exposes junk science manipulated beyond the point where even the manipulators cannot figure out if it means anything . . .
  • Climategate protester pwns CBC on live TV


  • Smoking gun?
    Hiding the decline? “From the file check what the code is doing! It's reducing the temperatures in the 1930s, and introducing a parabolic trend into the data to make the temperatures in the 1990s look more dramatic.”
  • A cartoonfrom Micky’s Muses that sums up the game:



  1. Tiger Woods had a domestic?!! Where's Not PC on the scoop?!!

  2. Cheers Peter. You're one of the few pushing this on a local front. Nicely collated links too.

  3. Former Believer30 Nov 2009, 12:57:00

    I was a believer myself until recently.

    Peter has been consistently pushing and writing about AGW issues since the day he started blogging. Other bloggers (cheerleaders) simply changed sides on AGW debate after National took office.

    We should salute local skeptics such as Peter, Ian Wishart, Poneke , Climate Science Coalition & others for their online activism & fighting for the truth.

  4. Excellent summation, see too...

    And remembering, re Copenhagen and John Key in particular; whatever stitched up shonky deal is made, the verdict of history and of science will remain the same; climate alarmists are frauds, and their stooges within the science establishments and in the media are guilty of collusion, lies and deceit. The information is now released, and the stink and shame of corruption will follow those who wilfully choose to ignore it...

  5. I was a believer myself until recently.

    Therein lies the problem...

    Science shouldn't be about "belief". It should be about the formation and testing of hypotheses. There should be no emotional investment (represented by belief) either way. Unfortunately, for some reason I really can not fathom, the whole AGW debate is endowed with the kind of fervent and fevered belief usually reserved for witchhunts or crusades. It makes zero sense to me. Why are people so emotionally invested in it?

  6. the Drunken Watchman30 Nov 2009, 16:29:00

    I have seen NIWA's account of their 'adjustment' of the raw temperature data from Wellington.

    Has anyone seen anything from NIWA on the adjustment of raw data from the other six stations NIWA use for their hockey stick?

    I think an examination of these adjustments should be high priority.

  7. Former Believer30 Nov 2009, 17:31:00

    I noted that there has been no pro-AGW poster today, posting opposing views?

  8. "Why are people so emotionally invested in it?"
    Because lots of people are looking for a belief system?
    The whole AGW thing makes little sense (at the foot-soldier level) until you look at it as a religion, or at least as a substitute for religion.

  9. Nothing in NZ mainstream media about the Aussie MPs defecting over their ETS as far as I can see.

  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

  11. Hell no, Sally--it would never do to suggest that some MP's might develop integrity and a spine. Or to suggest that the ETS is based on so much crap that even some politicians noticed.

  12. Greig

    You wrote, "the whole AGW debate is endowed with the kind of fervent and fevered belief usually reserved for witchhunts or crusades. It makes zero sense to me. Why are people so emotionally invested in it?"

    Speaking as a non-believer, I reckon people in general should be more passionate about it. After all, we are all going to be expected to pay for it...


  13. Keep up the effort, PC. Finally, a scientist I respect weighing in on this issue - Dr Frank Tipler - one of the world's greatest living mathematicians and cosmologists.

  14. "Why are people so emotionally invested in it?"

    There's no mystery.

    If the extreme implications of the hypothesis were true, it would represent a serious problem requiring serious measures.

    The measures most frequently discussed revolved around changes that would cause severe limitations on freedom and considerable new costs for every individual and business.

    People tend, understandably enough, to get worked up about such things.

  15. Addendum:

    Combine all I said before with the fact that most people are not very objective or rational, and you have a very potent brew for generating social discord.

    Not least because there are so many who stand to gain or lose power, prestige, and money over the outcome. Those, too, are volatile ingredients.

    One can say all day long that people certainly should be objective, settle the science then make informed, rational decisions about what is to be done, if anything, and how. And you would be right. But, unfortunately, that is not the way the world works at present.

  16. I'd be surprised if the Hadley site were down for sake of revising the previously released data. Too many folks, me included, have the entire dataset downloaded through their September update (last set of temps they released).

    Far more likely that all the traffic, plus the hack, have crashed their main server and that they're now on the emergency backup which for some ridiculous reason seems only to back up only semi-annually. That they haven't bothered fixing or updating their server is consistent with the general way they've been turtled up since the hack.

  17. Jeff: I don't see why belief should come into it though. Here's my thought process:

    1. Climate change definitely occurs.
    2. Humans only survive in a relatively narrow subset of climate conditions.
    3. Climate may be currently in the process of changing to a state outside that subset - unknown, unproven, but possible.
    4. Humans may be causing this - no strong evidence for this, but hey, I'll not write it off as a hypothesis.

    Given all of the above, what do you think the rational action would be?

    My take on it is that we should be investing in companies utilising technology to mitigate the effects of climate change. We can research causes, likelihoods, and timeframes all we like, but to have this fervent belief in humans destroying the planet does nothing but attempt to engender self loathing of our own species. EVEN IF we are doing it, it doesn't change the end result, and it's no excuse to shackle humans from doing what we do best - producing.

    All the religious aspect does is delay and politicise real attempts to ensure humanity continues to thrive and prosper. I feel we libz are adding to this problem by focusing on the wrong issue. Why not just throw the AGW-"believers" their bone? Let them have it. What we need to be pointing out is that if we accept climate will eventually change to a point where it won't support us, we need to be doing something productive about it, not attempting to stop it, but attempting to adapt the environment to our needs. Exploit the earth or die! :)

  18. Greig:

    "Humans only survive in a relatively narrow subset of climate conditions."

    I think you'd find that humans actually thrive better in warmer conditions than we do now. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period led to the building of great Cathedrals, as not so many people needed to be employed in architecture. Wine produced in England rivaled that of France, and the Vikings were able to inhabit Greenland successfully. There were also less climactic disasters (although more large floods, admittedly).

    But I essentially do agree with your post - whether AGW is happening or not has no true bearing on politics. But the fact that it is so tied up with leftist politics renders it necessary to try to deny AGW.

  19. "Why not just throw the AGW-"believers" their bone?"

    Are you serious? To do that is to open the door and spread your legs for control over every aspect of our lives. The AGW mania has stuff-all to do with climate change and everything to do with power. Either we fight the believers on every front available, at every opportunity or we condone the corruption of science for political ends.

  20. Callum: Narrow range out of the full spectrum. Think of the temperature of Mercury, and that of Neptune. ;)

    KG: I am serious. I don't see why letting them say that humans are changing the climate (which I don't believe, personally) has any bearing on fighting their proposed "solution" to this. The two need not be related in any way. That is, as I see it, where we should be fighting.

  21. According to the summation of the evidence on Wikipedia. Multiple Inquiries and Reports from the IPCC and US COngress have consistently found that there is evidence of warming.

    They have acknowledged the skeptics and their arguments but ultimately if the skeptics had better arguments then these panels would not have been able to ignore them.

    It seems that people are looking for smoking gunds when there aren't any.

    There has been controversy with climate calculations since at least 15 years ago when they fisrt started coming out. However considered and professional analysis juedged these arguments to be too weak to render AGW as false.

    It is not a conspiracy. It is a consensus.

  22. "However considered and professional analysis juedged these arguments to be too weak to render AGW as false."

    Yeah, there's been a lot of that considered and professional analysis around lately. About 60mb of it.

  23. As usual Barry gets it completely wrong. Where has he been this last week? Under a rock? Perhaps it's just shit-for-brains syndrome. The assertions he's reproduced have already been refuted on NotPC and elsewhere. Rather than go through the same material comprehensively yet again let's just point out a few facts:

    - There has been no valid proof for AGW presented by anyone.

    - The burden of providing proof always falls on he who asserts the positive (in this case that's the AGW touters).

    - There is no burden of proof on non-believers. They do not have to disprove the theory or prove an alternative.

    - There is, however, significant evidence which runs counter to AGW theory. The presence of that is sufficient to eliminate AGW theory as an explanation of reality.

    - There is not a consensus on AGW. For example, the leading climatologists do not agree with the theory.

    - A consensus is not a proof.

    Recommendation has to be that Barry does a little research and actually finds out fact PRIOR to posting here.


  24. Unfortunately for you LGM...

    The burden for absolute proof (to your standard) does not fall on proponents of AGW as you suggest. Thios is because the information is required in order to direct government actions. Governments almost NEVER have absolute proof when taking actions. It is the nature of the game. It is all about the balance of probabilities and best guesses.

    Multiple Inquiries and Reports from the IPCC and US Congress have consistently found that there is evidence of warming. Considered and professional analysis judged skeptic arguments to be insignificant and/or too weak to render AGW as conclusively false.

    This has been enough to convince those people who have a brain.

  25. Barry

    Regurgitating your usual moronic nonsense isn't good enough. You really do need to do better.

    Obviously comprehension is difficult for you. You are, after all, the fool who thought Harry Potter books were economics texts. Still, we can but try to help you with your problems. Perhaps you can learn. Maybe.

    What you are promoting is the notion that it is valid to coerce other people to do as you might want simply on the basis of a an arbitrary assertion or a fraud. Whether the assertion is valid or not, you do not appear to care a whit. The existence of the assertion is sufficient for the likes of you. To say the least, that is degenerate.

    That some people may be convinced (albeit temporarily) by a fraud isn't a validation of the fraud. A proof is what is required. Among other things the burden of providing it remains an excellent means of detecting and neutralising such fraudsters, fibbers, liars, con-men, dishonest academics, twisted politicians and the like.

    It is important to understand that there is no burden to prove a negative. In this case it is correct that non-believers are not under ANY burden to disprove the AGW theory whatsoever (even though some of their number are in possession of real evidence that refutes AGW).

    Your febrile attempt to excuse AGW touters by switching the burden of proof onto those who oppose AGW theory is invalid and illogical. I expect you do not have a clue as to why that is. Still, that's your ignorance and stupidity on display.


  26. proof (to the level you desire) is totally irrelevant.

    Because AGW is the reason for an action.

    Throughout history humans have planned their future actions with incomplete evidence and with sometimes part guesses because that is the nature of the world. To suggest that nothing could or should ever happen without 100% evidence and no possible doubt is to bring the entire world to a standstill.

    But I guess you never thought about it that way did you.

    You only thought about it your way. But you see the people that count in the world have all done their independent research and analysis and found that the risks of doing nothing, although the risk is not 100% certain, could be very high.

    You don't seem to understand that people anywhere have never needed 100% proof of the future outcome of their actions in order to do something. No-one can know the future with certainty and therefore no-one could take action.

    There is enough evidence, despite skeptical arguments, that AGW exists and the potential consequences are great.

    Go back and live in your bubble world of certainty.

  27. Barry,

    Quick point on your argument:

    warming <> AGW

    The fact that the earth is warming does not prove we are causing it.

    How do you treat an Illness (be it personal or global) without a diagnosis? You have a fever, so let's assume it's cancer and give chemo?

    Acting without proof has never served us well. I agree it does happen, but that does not mean it is the best way to make decisions.

  28. I've posed the question to monsieur, and I'll pose it to you too, Barry:

    Do you believe that (the evidence for) AGW warrants the strangulation of industry and the destruction of individual liberties, such as being proposed by environmentalists?

    And if so, why?

  29. Barry,
    Chemotherapy is a good analogy for the effect of significant CO2 emission reduction on the productive sector of the economy. It certainly does a lot more harm than good if administered for a miss-diagnosed condition.

    On the burden of proof question: AGW alarmists who tout coersive measures to change our behaviours most certainly do have the burden of proof! When alarmists promote voluntary action, they at least give us the option to make up our own minds. Those that successfully tout forceful measures take away our choice - surely they should have to prove their case. Fair enough?

  30. Sally,

    Unfortunately for you Governments have NEVER needed 100% proof/knowledge of the future in order to make decisions and do their thing.

    Never have.

    Never will.

    Chemotherapy isn't a good analagy because in that case, in the overwhelming number of cases the outcomes of the treatment are beneficial. Otherwise it would not be prescribed. Medicine works on hard evidence and facts.

    In the case of AGW it is not as moronic as ASSUMING it is cancer and giving Chemo.

    Millions of hours of study has been done using Billions of dollars and thousands of the best brains in the world.

    They now have a concensus. That ON THE BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES humans could quite POSSIBLY be warming the earth.

    You don't see that as a reason for action but you cannot demans a 100% burden of proof otherwise you would have to write a 1000 page thesis every morning to prove that by putting your key in the car you would start it. Well as Philosophers would tell you that you can never actually prove without doubt that something will happen. You can only predict it with a level of confidence.

    The level of confidence of AGW is not 100% but it certainly isn't 0% and until someone can say it is 0% then government will still have something to worry about.

    Governments have never asked your permission before on their actions have they? Have they supplied you with the written equations for why taking your tax money is the best thing to do?


    Because that is not what governments do. They take the best possible information and use it to make the best decisions.

    If your skeptic buddies could put together some halfway decent arguments against Global warming then we would not be talking about it.

    Sorry LGM. Seems you are quiet again~

  31. Barry: See Callum above? Please answer his question. That's what everything boils down to. If you answer "no", I promise I'll never bother arguing with you - you can say AGW exists all you like. :) If you say "yes", you and I will have a problem.

  32. Are you going to answer my question, Barry?

  33. Oops. Greig bet me to it! ;-)

  34. One other issue is of course that the warmists without exception always claim that warming is bad (or catastrophic), and there are no benefits, however it is far from certain that this is the case. Indeed, some extra CO2 and some extra heat is highly likely to be beneficial overall to the growth of flora and to human wellbeing.

    It's pretty obvious that what the realists (and lefties in general) really don't like is the thought of someone enjoying themselves, so they have to think of all sorts of reasons to prevent it.

  35. Indeed TWR,
    Alarmists, please stop raining on our parade!
    #%*#ing killjoys!

    To justify reducing our productivity and having fun you need to convince us that there is warming, that that warming is caused by man made CO2 emmissions and that that warming is on balance significantly harmful or at least more harmful than a considerable drop in productivity.
    After fairly extensive reading on the subject I have strong doubts about all of these factors.
    However if you intend to use coersive enforcement to make me change my behaviours - then you don't need to convince me do you?
    You just need to have a bigger gun.
    Kind of illustrates how force is anti-reason.

    Yes governments have almost invariably used excessive force unjustifyably in the past and still do. That is something that we are trying to change.

  36. It is a sad truth (that most people don't get to see-but which this incident makes abundantly clear) that scientist and the science community are as much a bunch of squabbling ingrates as the politicians in our government. Other examples of this kind of behaviour can be seen in anthropology and in a more specific case in the finding of the archeopteryx fossil. I say this as a budding scientist myself, I have been lectured by scientist who both strongly support global warming, and those who are less worried about it. Currently i still think global warming is a real phenomenon, and i am also fairly sure that in this instance of warming in the earths history that we have something to do with it. However i am also of the opinion that the cause of global warming should not be the main issue. The effects of a global warming this fast are unknown, we cannot find a precedent in the geologic record because it does not record at the scale of hundreds of years. The only thing i am sure of, is that the climate is changing (with or without out help) and we need to be prepared for any possibilities, lest we become a part of the 99.99% of all species that have gone extinct already.

  37. Sally

    Regarding AGW collectivists, such as Barry, you wroye: "To justify reducing our productivity and having fun you need to convince us that there is warming, that that warming is caused by man made CO2 emmissions and that that warming is on balance significantly harmful or at least more harmful than a considerable drop in productivity."

    They'd need to do MUCH more than that. They'd ALSO need to prove that coercive compulsory collectivisation of individuals is necessary, moral and good for Man.


  38. Barry,

    I was going to wait until you'd answered Callums questions. What's the matter with you? Can't you do it?


  39. Looks like Barry definately does suffer from shit-for-brains syndrome. He appears to have a terminal case!

    In essence his position boils down to the notion that it is valid to initiate force against others on the basis of an arbitrary assertion or a fraud. For Barry, the validity, accuracy or truth of such assertion is not of consequence. His concern is merely that an assertion exists so that action he supports may appear to be justified. For him, truth and fact are irrelevant.

    Note the laxness of his intellectual standards. As long as he FEELS a probablilty, the possibility, the appearance, that an assertion MIGHT be believable, then coercion and the initiation of force is acceptible. That is a key element in his approach so consider it carefully.

    Interestingly, people who employ that prescription, even when acquring great power and influence, suffer from an element of cowardice and intellectual dishonesty (they lack the courage of their convictions). They require an excuse to act as they intend. They know the fundamental reasons for their actions are wrong and are unlikely to convince others, so they manufacture or adopt excuses in an attempt to validate what they intend to do. Arbitrary assertions and frauds are urgently sought. Anything in the scramble to attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

    Returning to Barry's situation. Note his evasion of questions put to him by Callum:

    "Do you believe that (the evidence for) AGW warrants the strangulation of industry and the destruction of individual liberties, such as being proposed by environmentalists?"

    "And if so, why?"

    He's evaded answering those and he'd keep evading if he can. Apart from consistently exhibiting almost terminal stupidity (here and on other threads) the guy is dishonest and he's also a coward. If he does respond, don't expect a direct answer. He'll try to equivocate.


  40. Police are questioning Chris Jones:

  41. Chris Jones -> Phil Jones

  42. LGM: monsieur also didn't answer my question until sometime afterward, when he said that "I believe we can increase human freedom by fighting AGW" - without making any suggestion of how to fight AGW.

    Rimu didn't answer at all.

    I think we may be seeing a pattern here amongst AGW believers here...

  43. "I think we may be seeing a pattern here amongst AGW believers here..."

    Callum, start work on developing models that "explain" this pattern, find a scientist to act as a front man, apply for a massive Government hand-out then claim that the debate is over.

    Ooops its already been done.

  44. For one shining moment I thought Phil Jones was in danger of being prosecuted for fraudulent aquisition of millions of dollars. Sadly not so.

  45. "Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet
    the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is
    supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have :-)"

    noticed this quote from a blog comment.

    from the file:

  46. Callum said:

    "But the fact that it (AGW) is so tied up with leftist politics renders it necessary to try to deny AGW."

    This is a startling admission that libertarians will never admit to AGW no matter the level of evidence. It's something which is obvious to any casual observer, but stunning that one of you would admit it. I guess we can cease taking you seriously. Thanks.

    Judge Holden

  47. So "Judge" Holden:

    Is that why there's been no warming over the past ten years?

    Even the climate scientists pushing the AGW agenda know that there's been no warming for a decade or so. Refer to those leaked emails - one talks about how it's a "travesty" that they can't account for the lack of warming over the past ten years!

    "Stunningly obvious" indeed!

    Libertarians concern ourselves with AGW because people like you use the weak evidence to justify sending man back to the dark ages. Even if it had no political connotations, the evidence would still be weak.

    And that reminds me:

    Do you believe that (the evidence for) AGW warrants the strangulation of industry and the destruction of individual liberties, such as being proposed by environmentalists?

    I have not had ONE reply to the above question from warmists. I hardly expect to get one from you.

  48. *That should be 'stunningly "obvious"'.

  49. Also, I worded this wrong:

    "But the fact that it is so tied up with leftist politics renders it necessary to try to deny AGW."

    What it should've said is that it makes it necessary to fight on the scientific front, to reveal AGW for the scam it is.


  51. Sorry Callum, I appear to have thrown you into a tizz. I've stopped taking you seriously.

    Judge Holden

  52. I just love it when leftist AGW proponents try to evade the issue at hand.

    Says something about their philosophy, dare I say.

  53. "Judge" Holden

    There has been discussion within Libertarian, Objectivist, scientific, Capitalist, anachist and various other groups over whether it is necessary to oppose the political interests that promote AGW theory by formally disproving the AGW theory. Some say that disproving AGW is a precursor to frustrating the AGW power lusters and collectivists in their bid for power over others. Some suggest that it isn't necessary to do this as the issue is fundamentally political, hence the political issues pertaining to it should be what are evaluated and argued. Strictly speaking the latter group are correct, in that the debate that SHOULD be taking place is at the level of politics, with the question being whether or not coercive collectivism is the right political system for Man.

    It is a telling point that those who employ AGW theory in an attempted validation for their power lust are NEVER prepared to debate the political question directly. Instead they raise as diversion their AGW "science" and assert that their AGW "science" leads to their subsequent assertion- that "something" must be done. That "something" is, of course, the coercion by force of other people- a political action. Such "reasoning" is illogical, clearly false. It does not makwe sense (a vital point to note and understand). Nevertheless the debate has been steered towards the AGW "science". So we return to it.

  54. Since AGW theory has never been proven, is it necessary for non-believers and skeptics to disprove it? Philosophically and scientifically the answer to that question is no. The burden of proof always and necessarily falls upon those who assert the positive (in this case the AGW theory). There is no burden to disprove arbitrary assertions. Although in some instances it may be possible to disprove an assertion, the burden to prove remains always with the party making the assertion to the positive. All that anyone else need do is request proof from the asserter. If he is unable to provide it, then the assertion (in this case AGW theory) may be dismissed without further consideration. The assertion has not been proven and, at best, is mere conjecture or supposition. Worse, it may be a fraud.

    As it happens, even in the absence of proof AGW theory has been heavily promoted. For some twenty years people have been assaulted with AGW argument by social metaphysics, AGW argument by repetition, AGW appeals to authority, AGW appeals to special expertise and so forth, but never once has proof been provided. Among other issues, that lack of proof denies the possibility of reliably employing AGW theory in validation of political action. AGW touters have been frustrated by this fact. Their singular inability to find proof for their claims has been a grave concern for them. Hence the enormous expenditure of resources (billions of dollars so far) in their treasure hunt for a proof or anything that might substitute for one. Anything will do, such is the desperation- a computer-game model with pretty graphs and graphics even... They have not got anywhere near finding a proof. Their theory remains built of arbitrary assertion, riddled with inconsistencies, manipulations and magic "tricks".

    That this is the case has recently been confirmed in the various scandals roiling throughout the climate science community. It turns out that rather than behave as professional scientists, acting morally with integrity pursuing truth (fact of reality), various highly placed academics have committed frauds in order to secure funding, priviledge, prestigue, position, title and power. That they knew what they were doing was wrong is beyond doubt. Even lowly undergraduates are taught not to engage in such banal behaviour as these supposedly leading "learned men of science". To pretend not to be aware that any of the following activities is wrong, and instead to engage in all of them, is breathtaking.

    - Supression of raw data,
    - Manipulation of results to achieve predetermined conclusions,
    - Elimination of debate,
    - Elimination of dissent
    - Supression of vital information,
    - Evasions of important questions from colleagues,
    - Allowing personal vendettas to dominate research,
    - Corruption of peer review process (to the point where the entire peer review process has been undermined to the point of being discredited),
    - Engaging in harassment and running smear campaigns against those who do not fit the party line (to the point where jobs are lost and careers damaged/ruined)
    - Substituting lobbying for scientific enquiry

    A "scientist" who claims he did not realise is unfit to be a scientist at all. Such a one is best recognised as a rorter, a criminally dishhonest conman.

  55. Meanwhile, what has ocurred is that a significant body of evidence directly refuting AGW theory has gradually emerged. That, of itself, ought to be an end to the theory and the politics it defends. The evidence devastates the argument of the AGW touters. AGW theory is not correct. It is false and therefore can't be employed to justify the political measures sought. Still, there are those with desperate interest to see AGW theory continue. One can see their denials of reality emerging even now...

    Recapping, promoters of AGW theory fail to meet the burden of proof. Therefore AGW remains arbitrary assertion which may be dismissed without consideration. It certainly does not validate political actions of the kind being implemented coercively against others presently. Further, those who deny the validity of AGW are in possession of evidence of reality which contradicts the AGW theory- blows it apart. While they are not required to disprove the theory, the evidence available to them denies the theory anyway. They are therefore able to rebut it.

    Returning to the initial issue again. There has been discussion within Libertarian, Objectivist, scientific and various anarchist groups over whether it is necessary to oppose the political interests that promote AGW by formally disproving the AGW theory. On this thread, for example, it would appear that Greig thinks it is not necessary to engage in the climate debate. His preference appears to be to deal with the political debate directly. Callum thinks otherwise. Reading Callum's response to Grieg (rather than just taking a solitary out of context sentance) it is clear he thinks it is necessary to deny AGW theory as a precursor to dealing with the related political arguments. Denying the validity of AGW theory is justifiable since AGW has not been proven and the existing evidence contradicts it. My preference is to point out that AGW theory is not proven, that the available evidence contradicts it AND that AGW theory does not provide a justification for the political policies being promoted by those who support it either way. That is, AGW is not a justification for coercive intiations of force to collectivise individuals.

    Now that brings us to the final point we must deal with. How about you answer Callum's question directly? It shouldn't be too difficult. Answer, yes or no. Then, by all means, you may elaborate.


  56. I just came across the following papers, which are interesting. WHY? Because the paper that supposedly dismiss greenhouse effect did raise some interesting questions. The IPCC models are based on radiative heat transfer balance, which is heavily rely on classical radiation theory, where its validity is being questioned. The black-body radiation theory developed by Max Planck was thought to be universal, but they're now being questioned. The interesting thing of how the global climate model (GCM) rely heavily on black-body radiation derivation.

    It's been suggested recently in the literatures that black-body law is not universal after all.

    #1) An Analysis of Universality in Blackbody Radiation (2006)

    #2) Blackbody Radiation and the Loss of Universality: Implications for Planck’s
    Formulation and Boltzman’s Constant

    What bothers me, is that climatologists blindly apply black-body law irrelevant of the scale that it should be valid on.

    Again, I raised a question last week, that historically, theories that started with wrong premises can have excellent results initially, but as time goes on, more data is accumulated and wider domain that the model applies to, then inconsistencies start to appear. You can have a wrong theory (ie, premises that go into its formulation) with correct observation (eg, Bohr single electron hydrogen atom), but inconsistent in the wider domain. When inconsistencies do show up, then the premises must be re-examine because there must be something wrong. Either one may was inadequate or the entire premises were wrong.

    Another interesting publication from 2002 where Australian researchers from ANU showed that the second law of thermo-dynamic can be temporary broken.

    Now, this is something that I am not a fan of, since this breaking involves time-reversal process.

    Anyway, I believe that the blackbody radiation had been used incorrectly by climatologists as highlighted by the authors of the paper that supposedly debunked green-house effect.

    Has anyone has a better term for climatologists? They're not physicists and they're not engineers, however they (climatologists & engineers) apply physics principles in their domain of work. Engineer build things that are useful in our daily lives while climatologists try to foresee the future (which is also useful in planning our daily activities, etc...), but nothing else.

  57. Thanyou for that LGM.
    To clarify further - it is not necessary for a libertarian politician to debunk AGW theory. Libertarianism is about strictly limiting government use of power. That there are important issues that require attention does not necessarily imply that those issues should be managed with government authority. Thus concerns such as health, nutrition, education, transport, energy, housing, conservation etc. etc. do not imply the need for authoritative government ownership and/or management simply because they are truely important. The same applies to the issue of climate change.

    However it is all to the good if some libertarians have enough knowledge to debunk AGW theory as well when the theory is being touted as a reason for asserting more power over individual citizens.

    IMO both re-iteration libertarian principles is important while also debunking junk science is always a good thing too.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.