Monday, 23 November 2009

Warmists hacked

If you’re just waking up to the news that 1079 emails and 72 documents from the world’s leading warmist scientists has been hacked (showing to the whole world the real character and behind-the-curtain activities of the authors of the so-called scientific consensus) then you might have seen a looooong piece I posted below as the news was breaking.

But to help you get a quick handle on it all, here’s the main point as quoted from an email sent by expat NZ scientist and IPCC lead author Kevin Trenberth to the rest of the warmist team:

    “. . .  where the heck is global warming? . . . The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”

That’s really the crux of it right there.  The world is not warming.  They don’t know why. And it doesn’t fit any of their models.

Which means the “consensus” is a bust, the “science is settled” meme is a bust – and The Team themselves know that

All the rest is hand waving.

Taken together, the emails and documents suggest, as even the New York Times sniffily admits, “that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.”

It’s already been called “the blue-dress moment,” the 'Climate Pentagon Papers' and 'a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science.’

These are the papers Nick Smith and his legislative partners need to be reading before imposing an Emissions Trading Scam on us to shut down a non-problem.

If you want to read more, the best links to start with are these:

And just to show the local mainstream media how it can be done, here’s some of the mainstream media’s reports from around the globe (from the mainstream media, that is, who haven’t been caught with their pants down) :

As Andrew Bolt reports, “Most of the media reporting is easing into this Great Global Warming Conspiracy story sideways, but the tide is slowly turning . . . ”

26 comments:

  1. Where's the fucken useless MSM? What about Nick Smith's $50m trade off to the Mouldee for this bullshit ETS?

    What an utter discrace the media and this government is.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What an utter "discrage" the media and this government is.

    effing typos.

    ReplyDelete
  3. disgrace - 3rd time lucky.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Smith and Key need to front up and explain why they still propose to increase taxes in the name of this scam. But they won't.
    No guts, no integrity.

    ReplyDelete
  5. No surprises here. Science is like anything else, the "Establishment" will work to bully and suppress those that don't agree with their views. That's why talk of scientific consensus is completely misleading. You can either prove something, or you can't, it's not a popularity contest.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Believe it or not, even leftists that are posting on it (and denying there's anything to see), are blocking comments at the moment.
    Key was on breakfast this morning and Henry didn't even ask a question about it. I just can't believe it, it is simply ignored.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Peter, there are not one but two possibilities here. One is that these are good scientists doing good science in a politicised environment. In that environment these scientists have strong incentives to present a consensus and and keep variation and disagreement behind closed doors.

    The second possibility is that these emails reveal fraud.

    I worry about the 'gotcha' mentality so apparent in the radical left. I can't imagine how catching anybody in an awkward quote or two is ever helpful.

    I haven't read many of the emails, I am not qualified to understand much of what is being said there, and what I have read makes it hard to tell which of the two hypotheses is true.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I don't know how information in government works, but is it assured that Nick Smith and John Key will get briefed on this issue?

    On the back of this information that strikes at the heart of peer review, it would seem self evident that all work on implementing an ETS should be stopped, and a complete review of the science on the entire AGW issue be undertaken before labouring the NZ public with as much as one cent of cost.

    And these emails should now be the only issue under discussion at Copenhagen.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hate to burst your bubble guys.

    But this aint gonna make any difference in the march towards the worldwide taxation of carbon emissions.

    The ship's course is already set.

    I read quite a few of the emails. Most of them to me seem like scientists bitching at each other, the quite shocking peer review stacking one, along with some very dubious attitudes towards data and some outright efforts to thwart the release of data and information.

    But it's nothing we didn't already know. Climate statistics isn't like the physical sciences.

    The standards aren't so high.

    A shame, but that's how it is.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Willie, I don't think the issue is or should be exactly how scientists in different disciplines go about their work. The issue is the process of politics and the reasonable level of probability on which politicians are supposed to operate. While all decision making involves uncertainty, the larger and more important an issue is, the more important it is to have a reasonable grasp of the information underpinning the issue and the effects of the proposed alternative interventions.
    What we have now, is politicians coming into power on the thinnest of margins, creating coalition and other deals with again the skinniest of margins, to act on science without any basis the create interventions that are utterly unproven, but which will impact significantly on the economies they are "responsible" for. There is just no way to rationalize such behaviour, no matter how hard you try.

    ReplyDelete
  11. If anyone who would like to view the emails (without downloading the entire file)
    Go to www.anelegantchaos.org

    ReplyDelete
  12. That's why talk of scientific consensus is completely misleading. You can either prove something, or you can't

    Actually Sam, this is where you are wrong. Science can never prove anything. It only provides evidence to support a theory. The more evidence the more likely it is that the theory is true. It's about probability. However, science can disprove things.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Dr Smith said the agreement with the Maori Party included inserting a Treaty of Waitangi clause in the bill, insulating a further 8000 homes occupied by low income families, extra funding for the Enviroschools scheme and protecting the integrity of previous treaty settlements."

    I despair, I really do.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yes goofey, it's about probability and you're correct there, and the probability of the current worshiped IPCC models' prediction accuracy doesn't look that great. This means that if they're not that great, then you shouldn't have faith in them.

    ReplyDelete
  15. AGW is a complete fraud and these emails demonstrate that.

    Why does New Zealand insist on being poorer?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Nick Smith just interviewed by Larry Williams. When confronted with the issue of the emails Smith - let's call him Reckless Irresponsible Luddite - stated he believes this whole issue to be a conspiracy theory, and brushed it off.

    ETS to go on still.

    I'm sick of having my life run by Evangelicals like Luddite Smith. Come the revolution ...

    ReplyDelete
  17. What a great and timely development. I'm having another drink to celebrate.

    ReplyDelete
  18. A lack of current warming does not necessarily disprove AGW, although of course it is a puzzle to be solved.

    Consider the similar examples of Uranus and Mercury. Uranus' orbit contradicted Newtonian physics and scientists could only assume that a nearby planet was influencing its orbit. They searched and searched and three years later found the culprit, Neptune. Their refusal to drop the theory paid off.

    On the other hand, Mercury also had an orbit that contradicted Newtonian physics, but in this case the theoretical planet "Vulcan" was never found. In this case, Newtonian physics was indeed disproved, and their refusal to drop the theory didn't pay off.

    It will be interesting to see whether the lack of current warming is explained by a Neptune or a Vulcan. Here's hoping a Vulcan.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "I'm having another drink to celebrate."
    Why, Gregster? There's nothing to celebrate--we're still going to be taxed and regulated in the name of AGW.
    Our masters will wait for the fuss to die down (aided by the media) and then they'll go ahead with their plans anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  20. You may be correct KG. I was being positive.

    As to there being nothing to celebrate - you're pretty hard to please!

    This kind of exposure of the warmists' machinations, and the valuelessness of peer review with regard to AGW, can only be a great thing.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Tim

    The burden of proof always falls upon the party asserting the positive. In this instance the warmists have asserted their AGW theory. Therefore it is up to them to provide proof. There is no requirement for anyone to disprove their conclusions and claims.

    Interestingly enough there has been publication of evidence of reality that directly contradicts the AGW theory. Still, that does not shift the burden of proof. It still falls upon the AGW touters to supply it.

    Regarding the planet story, it does not apply to AGW as you obviously intended. The conclusion is not supported.

    LGM

    ReplyDelete
  22. I think you might be a little quick there LGM. Science does not discard every theory it falsifies. It often seeks ways to fit the data to the theory (not the other way around). It seems anti-science, but there is no doubt that it has often produced good results (eg. Neptune).

    Uranus' orbit contradicted Newtonian physics. Rather than chucking out Newton, they blamed it on a planet. They were right. Neptune existed. If they had been wrong, they would have kept on searching with no reward.

    The current slowdown in warming contradicts AGW. Rather than chucking out AGW, they will blame it on something. That something will either be true (exist) or false (not exist).

    Kapish? It's really a fairly harmless observation I'm making. Scientists won't abandon AGW (at least not immediately), they will just insert new hypotheses as to why the slowdown is occurring.

    That's (fortunately/unfortunately/who cares) how science progresses in the long term.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Bryn Schurfield who often have some guest blog-posts here at Not PC, had suggested int the past that when one faces a problem (such as your example above Tim, ie, observations that didn't fit Newtonian mechanics) he/she then starts to look for a more fundamental theory of reality, since it is obvious that the current accepted one is contradicted by observations. As a consequence of that Newtonian shortcomings, general relativity was then born which solved the shortcomings of newtonians.

    I pointed out yesterday on my comment from last friday's morning ramble blog post, that the current IPCC model cannot account for the temperature dip in the 1950s/1960s (one of many examples), so this clearly shows that their is something fundamentally wrong with the theory because the model theoretical predictions don't fit the observations. Even a slight indication or admission that the theory may be wrong, then there is no need to keep wasting time in searching for better way to improve it, since it ain't gonna improve.

    WHY? Because if you started with a wrong footed assumptions in your model formulations, at the beginning, you will encounter more problems down the line, regardless how much you try to refine it. Bohr learnt this when his hydrogen atom model was hailed as a great success at the time, but when the model was applied to atoms that have 2 or more electrons, it failed completely.

    Bohr (and others), then spent almost 10 years searching for ways to improve his model. Modifications after modifications to the original model, and still it didn't agree with emission spectrum of multi-electron atoms/ions. The equations became more complex (because of add-on & modifications to the original model) and still no success.

    Bohr finally abandoned his effort is seeking to improve his model, where shortly afterwards, quantum mechanics was born (where bohr was again influential in there), then the problem was solved.

    Why did Bohr waste almost 10 years in searching for something that was unfruitful? Because put a wrong foot when he formulated his hydrogen theory by assuming that electrons circle around the nucleus in a newtonian flat mini-planetary solar system. It was wrong footed from the beginning and despite years of trying to improve it, still failed.

    I can see a similarity here in the historical Bohr hydrogen atom model and the IPCC climate models. It is obvious that there is disagreements between the models theoretical predictions and the observations. I think that they should start abandoning ship and start looking for a new theory, because they're going to end up like Bohr, ie, wasting years in researching something that was wrong footed from the start and have false hope that with more complex formulas, it will improve. That's simply delusion.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Falafulu Fisi

    It is obvious that there is disagreements between the models theoretical predictions and the observations.

    Indeed,as models are solely experiments,required to verify theory and if the model lacks predictive power,then the conjecture obviously needs some more work.

    Say for example where the only scenario(c) of Hansen that is not diverging in the T trend required ALL emission to STOP in 2000

    http://www.pnas.org/content/103/39/14288/F2.expansion.html

    Maksimovich

    ReplyDelete
  25. There are ample free market options for reducing CO2, the fact those pushing this don't look for "first do no harm" options like this, demonstrates how too many are ideologically driven around this.

    I get the sense that if it was demonstrated to be false then many would be upset at this.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Tim

    Nevertheless, the burden of proof remains on he who asserts the positive.

    In dealing with situations such as the AGW theory, one either has specific knowledge of reality sufficient to understand what is going on, or one has some knowledge but it is insufficient to understand what is occuring, or one does not know.

    In the second and third categories one may propose ideas, make supposition, have hunches, guess, search for solutions to problems and seek to win knowldege, but it is NEVER valid to substitute proposition, supposition, proposal etc. for knowledge. It is never valid to make that substitution and then claim that one has in fact gained possesion of knowledge of reality.

    In the case of Uranus and Neptune, the astronomers did not know why there were perturbations in the orbits. Some of them had reason to present various proposals and to make suppositions about what they thought might be occurring. It remained necessary to undertake the search for real evidence with which to prove those proposals/suppositions. The burden for proof remained and until it was satisfied, clearly they DID NOT KNOW.

    For Mercury, they were not able to discover sufficient evidence to support the suppositions they had made. They could not make the proof. The evidence available was that there was no extra planet present to cause the orbital aberrations. Hence they did not know why those occurred.

    Now at that stage, they could recycle the suppositions, proposals etc. and keep trying to make proof. They could await better means for searching (new technology) and try again. They could modify their proposals to allow for what they had encountered and try again to establish proof. They could accept that their proposals were not correct, come up with new ones and seek to prove those instead. As always, the burden of proof remains, falling upon he who asserts the positive.

    That is how science "works".

    LGM

    ReplyDelete

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.