Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.
But Nobody is Laughing
Published on February 4, 2010 By Dr Guy In Politics

I got interested in Anthoprogennic Global Warming (AGW) by being challenged by a co-worker.  Having some time on my hands between researching HEOA 2008 (a whole other story), I delved into it. At apparently the right time.  Just post Emailgate.  What I have found is both astonishing and embarrassing.  Astonishing for the depth of the deception, and embarrassing to anyone that would like to call the people perpetuating this hypothesis scientists.  Clearly they may have the title, but have no other relation to real scientists in other disciplines.

The fraud, deceptions, criminal acts, lies, and data manipulation go far beyond "hiding the decline" or deleting emails (illegal in both countries).  Herewith a brief, and far from comprehensive, synopsis of the goings on behind the latest world crises.

First we had GlacierGate.This is where Rajendri Pachauri, the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (for the UN), apparently used a climbers magazine (not peer reviewed) and an off hand comment by an Indian scientists to declare that the Himalayan Glaciers would disappear in 25 years.  Not even close.  the closest anyone can come to such an outrageous claim is that "someone" said they would disappear in 350 years.  just a small mistake.  But not the last.

Then we had AmazonGate where AGW was destroying 40% of the rainforests!  Problem is the publication did not talk about AGW, but rather the residents just clear cutting the forest (for cattle and crops).  And the sourced document was not Peer reviewed! (Per the standards imposed by the IPCC on all its sources).  So it was just a plain, undocumented lie.

Then there is GreenpeaceGate! This is more far reaching, but never the less, damaging.  In no less than 8 places in the IPCC AR4 report (4th Assessment report), the sources used for claims of AGW are none other than puff pieces put out by GreenPeace.  Now Greenpeace is a nice organization that does save whales, but they are hardly research scientists, nor are the peer reviewed.  They are an advocacy group with an agenda - an agenda against what?  Everything Man does.  Impartial, they are not.

Not to be outdone, the IPCC AR4 report then goes on to claim that AGW is soiling the Antartic with BootGate! - “The multiple stresses of climate change and increasing human activity on the Antarctic Peninsula represent a clear vulnerability (see Section 15.6.3), and have necessitated the implementation of stringent clothing decontamination guidelines for tourist landings on the Antarctic Peninsula (IAATO, 2005).”

They pulled a cleaning article out of a magazine to show how AGW was now desstroying the pristine wilderness of the antartic.  Again, there are 2 problems.  One is that it is definitely not peer reviewed, and worse, does not even talk about AGW (or any kind of climate).

But what if you want to find out about these things?  Why go to Wiki, right?  Not if you want the truth, for we also have WikiGate! How about that folks!  Of course you have not heard about dissent (at least if you get any news from Wiki), as the The fix was in!

But where is our watchdog media in all of this?  Should they not be protecting us from this scandal?  Not if you are the Ny Times! The IPCC AR4 reference reads (Wilgoren and Roane, 1999) and is the source for the following claim: Unreliable electric power, as in minority neighbourhoods during the New York heatwave of 1999, can amplify concerns about health and environmental justice.

So what next?  Can the Ar4 get any worse? Perhaps, considering who helped write it - Phil jones and Wei-Chyung Wang seem to have a problem with Chinese Temperatures. Chinagate! Must be all those funny characters, right?

What next?  Well, then we have the shenanigans that the CRU and NASA are playing with the numbers.  It seems that the number of stations they used to show the blade of the Hockey Stick went from aroun 6000 in 1990 to only about 1500 today. TemperatureStationGate!

Which lead directly to monkeying with the absence of numbers, or the Bolivia Effect! Thisis where the absence of the recording stations leads to global warming higher than the surrounding areas they are using to "extrapolate" the data from.  Cute trick.

But in all of this, at least some things are normal.  Your (if you are an American) tax dollars at work, with Gavin Schmidt Gate! Ah yes, an employee on the public dole maintaining a PR site for Phil Jones, Michael Mann, et, al. on government time.  How do we know?  because he follows his leaders well and deletes any dissenting comments from the site!  So if real Climate is the only source you are getting your information from, you are getting screwed (twice if you are an American).

But back to the IPCC AR4 report.  What has been happening there lately? Can we say Conflict of Interest? Yep! Seems the leader of the IPCC is profiting handsomely from this scare!  And not just from his Porn Book. The man is randy!

Ok, so what is left?  How about "Steal the Data before it is Quality reviewed!" or lets throw some real religion into this whole sordid affair.  How about the IPCC using a paper that was not peer reviewed, but rejected, before it was finally printed in a trade magazine - A year after it was referenced! They dont call that the Jesus Paper for nothing! Seems it died, was resurrected, then used before it was resurrected to promote IPCC AR4!

And then there is the latest scandal to hit the IPCC AR4 - Hurricanegate! It just keeps getting better and better. But it is not over yet.  To date, scientists and authors have discovered 9 citatations of a master thesis (it was all supposed to be Peer reviewed?  Where is a master thesis coming from??), 2 of which were never published, and 31 PHD theses or dissertations, one that was never published, and 3 from (guess where?) East ANglia!!  All in the IPCC AR4 report.  And the review has only just started.

yes, we can see that the "Holy Bible" of the AGW movement is rife with problems!  But have you heard it in the American Press?  Not hardly (at least the Uk is catching up).  And are you going to try to "Google" this stuff? Don't bother, because we also have Googlegate! yes, links on google have been disappearing faster than facts from the IPCC AR4 paper.  As much as I hate to say it, you are better off with Bing.  Someone at google does not want you to hear the truth!

There is a lot more, but this has gone on long enough.  So the next time someone tells you to believe them because "The Bible (AR4) tells them so", pop a top sit back, and show them their religion is falling apart.


Comments (Page 1)
5 Pages1 2 3  Last
on Feb 04, 2010

Damn!  You just cannot keep up with this stuff!  The latest is Holandgate! It seems that the IPCC does not know where it is or who lives there!

on Feb 05, 2010

Well done article, Doc.  You should submit it to a news mag.  For me the answer is simple when you realize that the eco-movement in America is the home of displaced and dis-spirited communists.  They will go to any length to destroy the good ole USA PERIOD.

on Feb 05, 2010

Well, I'm no expert on global warming or climate change... namely, because I have no relevant credentials (do you?) nor have I ever published any peer-reviewed papers on the topic (have you?)

Therefore, both you and I are relegated to the sidelines, kinda like common folk back in the day when Galileo said the earth wasn't the center of the universe and the church said it was... common folks like us could only sit on the sidelines and pontificate without being able to make an informed decision (all things considered)

What I find incredibly disingenuous about the whole thing is that the voices speaking out against "global warming" or whatever you choose to call it are employing the exact same tactics that big tobacco used back in the day when they were still saying that smoking didn't cause cancer. Rather than focus on the actual science from an unbiased standpoint, the naysayers are dedicated solely to disproving, or at the minimum, sowing doubt and confusion with very little actual science employed on their end. Also, they are treating "global warming science" as if it is a single, unified entity or political party, which it certainly is not. Instead of being a two-sided argument, it is a 17 sided argument but it seems the media pundits at FOX have boiled it down to the ultra simple (and rather ridiculous) pro or con debate. Kinda like the current U.S two-party farce, in which everyone loses!

Do I pay attention to or care about IPCC reports? Not really. However, I do pay attention to reports and scientific studies done in my own country.

Take a look-see here;

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2010/02/05/tech-climate-arctic-ice.html

370 scientists from around the world spent the last two years performing exhaustive studies on the Canadian arctic and have come to the conclusion that the sea ice is melting much faster than the most pessimistic estimates. Now, whether it is due to human activity or a so-called "natural cycle" it will have far reaching and drastic consequences. Also of interest, was the fact that they found a large amount of industrial pollutants and contaminants in the ice, evidence that us pesky humans can have a universal impact on our planet even from thousands of miles away, that there is no "safe area". There are more than 6 billion people alive today, meaning there are 4 times more people than there were at the turn of the century. No matter which way you cut it, that's a lot of mouths and a lot of assholes and to think that we can just go on business as usual without having any impact is foolhardy, even from the perspective of an idiotic non-scientist like myself!

The science that I've seen, from local sources, says we're all in for a world of hurt. Whether or not we're the cause, we should be doing everything we can to try and mitigate a disaster -before it becomes a disaster-

Or, we can sit back, guffaw at the tabloid press and down another cheeseburger. On second thought, it might be fun to sit back and watch the world go to hell in a handbasket. So long as the beer doesn't run out!

 

on Feb 05, 2010

Well I'm doing something...paying more to heat my home this winter...because it is colder than last year. I can't wait for more global warming. You'd think the "change" people would welcome it, instead of trying to keep something as dynamic as the earth's climate, frozen (pun intended) in time. Personally, the sooner those liberal do gooders, with their exclusive beach front property, are under water on the west coast the better. I'm sure they'll just buy the new beach front.

on Feb 05, 2010

Arty -

How many times are you going to set that strawman up & knock him down?

And I'd start paying attention to those IPCC reports whether you feel 'qualified' or not - what they've almost managed to pull off with bogus justification would affect you very directly, and not in a good way.  And they aren't done trying.

on Feb 06, 2010

it seems the media pundits at FOX have boiled it down to the ultra simple (and rather ridiculous) pro or con debate

Hardly. It seems that if you are sceptical about anything to do with man-made global warming you're firmly in the crazy deniers camp. So for example if you think that the effects might not be as great as made out, or that we might not be as big a contributing factor as made out, etc., you get treated as some idiotic extremist who doesn't think there's any form of global warming because you don't accept the prevailing view. Even the use of the word deniers is condescending, since it suggests you're in denial about something that is obviously true. Maybe fox oversimplifies it too (it wouldn't surprise me if they did!), but they're certainly not the only ones.

on Feb 06, 2010

Speaking of oversimplification, the warmmongers have been rather quiet here lately.

I'm sure they're just busy.

on Feb 07, 2010

The Chairman of IPCC Dr Rajender Pachauri is certainly guilty of misleading the whole world by trotting up dates that are figment of feverish imagination. The 2035 melt down date for the Himalayan Glaciers is not sourced from a good scientific journal but from a travel magsazine. It now appears that Dr R K Pachuri has had a vested interest in companies dealing with "green technology" whose stocks kept rising in the days after the sumit.

 

on Feb 08, 2010

Big Fat Daddy
Well done article, Doc.  You should submit it to a news mag.  For me the answer is simple when you realize that the eco-movement in America is the home of displaced and dis-spirited communists.  They will go to any length to destroy the good ole USA PERIOD.

It is almost impossible to keep up with the latest scandals about the IPCC, CRU, and NCDC.  They are coming at a clip of 1-2 a day!  Mine is just culled from the other sources, not anything original.  I had time, but not that much.

on Feb 08, 2010

Artysim
Well, I'm no expert on global warming or climate change... namely, because I have no relevant credentials (do you?) nor have I ever published any peer-reviewed papers on the topic (have you?)

Hmmm....I think with all the links (did you read them?), it would appear to most people that I was just citing revelations that others made (perhaps compiling them in one post for the first time - I do not know that nor do I claim it).  So the question should be, I can read, can you?

Artysim
What I find incredibly disingenuous about the whole thing is that the voices speaking out against "global warming" or whatever you choose to call it are employing the exact same tactics that big tobacco used back in the day when they were still saying that smoking didn't cause cancer. Rather than focus on the actual science from an unbiased standpoint, the naysayers are dedicated solely to disproving, or at the minimum, sowing doubt and confusion with very little actual science employed on their end. Also, they are treating "global warming science" as if it is a single, unified entity or political party, which it certainly is not. Instead of being a two-sided argument, it is a 17 sided argument but it seems the media pundits at FOX have boiled it down to the ultra simple (and rather ridiculous) pro or con debate. Kinda like the current U.S two-party farce, in which everyone loses!

I guess you missed my earlier article - Follow the Money! Again,an attack by misdirection (comparing tobacco) instead of addressing FACTS.  The Tobacconists in this case is Phil Jones, Al Gore and Rajendri Pachauri.  Not the ones question the smoke and mirrors they have put up.  That is evident to anyone with any kind of critical thinking, but obscure to the ones that refuse to question and accept the rantings of greedy people at faith value.

It is not the skeptics that are treating it as a single unified entity, but those pushing an agenda that are.  It is not 17 sides, but just 2 sided.  Those looking for good science, and those using bad science to advance an agenda.  Which side are you on?  damn the science and full speed ahead on the agenda?  Or good science to see where it leads? 

And while there is 1 link to a FOX story (out of 20), I used it to show diversity, not reliance on a single source.  Clearly you did not read the links since 95% of them have nothing to do with Fox. 

Artysim
Do I pay attention to or care about IPCC reports? Not really. However, I do pay attention to reports and scientific studies done in my own country.

Take a look-see here;

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2010/02/05/tech-climate-arctic-ice.html

Ok, you quote a news story of a pro AGW site, and I quote a major science institution - University of Illinois. They are the keepers of the Arctic Ice.  And regardless, if you are trying to prove AGW by the arctic ice, then you are using bad science.  We just had 3 ft of snow in DC.  Does that prove or disprove AGW?  The answer is neither.  The ice cap melting of 2007 was due to a change in trade winds, and the ice healed itself by last summer.  What caused it?  no one has bothered to check that out yet, so I fail to see how your puff piece (by advocates of AGW) does anything but prove my point.  bad science (or in this case just hysteria that has no identified cause).

Artysim
370 scientists from around the world spent the last two years performing exhaustive studies on the Canadian arctic and have come to the conclusion that the sea ice is melting much faster than the most pessimistic estimates. Now, whether it is due to human activity or a so-called "natural cycle" it will have far reaching and drastic consequences.

And your point?  Again, it is not unprecedented, as the warming during the MWP was greater than it was today (or are you one of the bad science people that maintain the vikings farmed permafrost?).  All it shows is that the North Polar ice caps expands and shrinks, but does not tell us why, or the cause?  So we are going to saracfice millions (perhaps billions) of people to an "I don't know"? when it could be natural?

Artysim
Also of interest, was the fact that they found a large amount of industrial pollutants and contaminants in the ice, evidence that us pesky humans can have a universal impact on our planet even from thousands of miles away, that there is no "safe area". There are more than 6 billion people alive today, meaning there are 4 times more people than there were at the turn of the century. No matter which way you cut it, that's a lot of mouths and a lot of assholes and to think that we can just go on business as usual without having any impact is foolhardy, even from the perspective of an idiotic non-scientist like myself!

Again, so?  Are you trying to drive home my point?  Did you know they found the evidence of krackatoa in the arctic ice as well?  Are you maintaining that was man's fault as well (ala danny Glover)?  All you are proving is that air moves, not that man has caused warming (the core principal of AGW).  And that when it precipitates, the air gets frozen in water crystals (sometimes called snow) and the trace gasses and particles are in those molecules.  WOW!  Now that is a whole new theory!  Publish it!  Again so what?  If you re-read the article, you will see I am not promoting polution, yet you would have some believe it by your post.  Why?

Artysim
The science that I've seen, from local sources, says we're all in for a world of hurt. Whether or not we're the cause, we should be doing everything we can to try and mitigate a disaster -before it becomes a disaster-

Oh, things are changing!  I don't think I (or any of the non-moonbat skeptics) claimed otherwise.  But disaster?  I sure did warn about scaremongering like that.  It comes back to the  same thing - if it is not AGW, then what are we doing trying to change it?  Indeed, an institution no less prestigious than Standford University Says it aint all bad!  And if man is not causing it, I have 2 questions:

1. What makes some people so arrogant to think man can do a damn thing about it? - and-

2. Would not doing something that does affect it have a worse impact in the long run?  if it is natural and we are coming out of the LIA, then retarding the warm up would mean we would head into another ice age that could be far worse.  And what, in the esteemed scientists opinion is worse?  A Warming period (ala Vikings colonizing Greenland) or an Ice age (think glaciers covering all of Canada)?

Artysim
Or, we can sit back, guffaw at the tabloid press and down another cheeseburger. On second thought, it might be fun to sit back and watch the world go to hell in a handbasket. So long as the beer doesn't run out!

I challenge you to find one link from the tabloid press in my sources.  But it seems you have your only link in that genre!  So I can only conclude you read the words, and never bothered to check the citations or sources.  Why?  I can only surmise you already knew the answer (as did Jones, Mann, Briffa, Trenbeth, Gore and pachauri).  In other words you do not feel a need to find the truth, as it was given to you from on high (the high priests of AGW).

That is your faith, and I will not argue your faith.  But if you want to discuss AGW and the bad science behind the movement, let's discuss more.  If you want to talk polution and solutions to it, let's discuss more.  But don't try to do a chicken little number with AGW as the source of all ills and the source of all solutions.  It aint.

on Feb 08, 2010

Nitro Cruiser
Well I'm doing something...paying more to heat my home this winter...because it is colder than last year. I can't wait for more global warming. You'd think the "change" people would welcome it, instead of trying to keep something as dynamic as the earth's climate, frozen (pun intended) in time. Personally, the sooner those liberal do gooders, with their exclusive beach front property, are under water on the west coast the better. I'm sure they'll just buy the new beach front.

Changing climate is going to have a lot of reprecussions.  Some good, some not good.  But probably none on the order of magnitude that Al Gore wants us to think.  On eof the discussions now is on how much more land area will be arable because of increased rain, and what areas may have longer growing seasons if it is warming.  IN the hysteria that has been generated, these questions have not really been addressed.

Daiwa
Arty -

How many times are you going to set that strawman up & knock him down?

And I'd start paying attention to those IPCC reports whether you feel 'qualified' or not - what they've almost managed to pull off with bogus justification would affect you very directly, and not in a good way.  And they aren't done trying.

It is a strawman to maintain that since they wrote it, we cannot understand it.  Clearly when science gets to the point of making itself a mysticism instead of a science, then it is not good science but bad science.  I do not have to know how to calculate the R-squared values of a statistical regression to understand if the stated claim is good or not.

on Feb 08, 2010

aeortar

Hardly. It seems that if you are sceptical about anything to do with man-made global warming you're firmly in the crazy deniers camp. So for example if you think that the effects might not be as great as made out, or that we might not be as big a contributing factor as made out, etc., you get treated as some idiotic extremist who doesn't think there's any form of global warming because you don't accept the prevailing view. Even the use of the word deniers is condescending, since it suggests you're in denial about something that is obviously true. Maybe fox oversimplifies it too (it wouldn't surprise me if they did!), but they're certainly not the only ones.

Exactly!  I think most of the media does over simplify things.  It is the nature of hteir job.  But then you can use that as a starting point to dig deeper if you want a deeper understanding.  And yes, if the East Anglia emails taught us anything, it is that the pro AGW group are afraid of debate and discussion and attempt to supress it at every juncture.  Why?  if they were so right, they would want to bring it into the light of day instead of hiding it under rocks and false labeling.

Daiwa
Speaking of oversimplification, the warmmongers have been rather quiet here lately.

I'm sure they're just busy.

Warmists.  And yes, they are in major CYA mode.

Bahu Virupaksha
The Chairman of IPCC Dr Rajender Pachauri is certainly guilty of misleading the whole world by trotting up dates that are figment of feverish imagination. The 2035 melt down date for the Himalayan Glaciers is not sourced from a good scientific journal but from a travel magsazine. It now appears that Dr R K Pachuri has had a vested interest in companies dealing with "green technology" whose stocks kept rising in the days after the sumit.

When you start throwing billions of dollars around (the amount being given to the science by governments), it does tend to bring out graft and greed.  Pachauri got caught up in gold fever.

on Feb 08, 2010

Changing climate is going to have a lot of reprecussions. Some good, some not good. But probably none on the order of magnitude that Al Gore wants us to think. On eof the discussions now is on how much more land area will be arable because of increased rain, and what areas may have longer growing seasons if it is warming. IN the hysteria that has been generated, these questions have not really been addressed.

I agree Doc, and I kind of know what drives you to point out the info (to counter the dis-information, which IMO is just to make a buck off of the people). I'm a firm believer that the planet will do what it's been doing, and should be left to it (that's is short of an asteroid striking it, I'm not a sadist). Perhaps this is natures way of shaking off it's little bugs (us), just as a wet dog shakes off water. I just wish that the folks that are shouting "the sky is falling" would put that energy into something they DO have control over. I'm not suggesting climate patterns shouldn't be studied, it's good info to know. I just have a problem with someones hand in my pocket, taxing me for something I'm going to use anyway, just to line their own pockets. When better alternatives become available they will be adapted, that's how things work, always have. The government invents nothing, so why do many put so much of their faith in government? The guy that invents sustainable cold fusion will be the worlds hero, even then something better will follow. I see this problem as part of the "instant gratification" generation, they want it now (Verruca Salt style)

You have the patience of a saint trying to point out the flaws to the "government will fix it with cash" folks. Rock on!

on Feb 08, 2010

I guess if I follow Arty's mentallity, if my mechanic says I need a new transmission on a 2009 vehicle, since I am no expert why question him? If the guy from Geek Squad tells me I need a new hard drive on my computer because I can't access the Internet, I am no PC expert so then maybe I should get one? Why do we even vote? It's not like the average American has any political experience, at least from Arty's point of view. If you don't know anything about something, just do what the expects say to do. Yea right.

on Feb 08, 2010

Nitro Cruiser
I'm a firm believer that the planet will do what it's been doing, and should be left to it (that's is short of an asteroid striking it, I'm not a sadist).

Yes, but that is an external influence!  And not caused by man. That is just the universe's way of bitch slapping Gaia.

One of the facts that is often overlooked is that man is not adding or subtracting anything from the planet.  We are just redistributing it.  And while that can (and has) unbalanced eco systems in the short term and small extent, the earth has done a lot worse (volcanos, earthquakes, hurricans, etc.) and lived to talk about it.

ChuckCS
I guess if I follow Arty's mentallity, if my mechanic says I need a new transmission on a 2009 vehicle, since I am no expert why question him? If the guy from Geek Squad tells me I need a new hard drive on my computer because I can't access the Internet, I am no PC expert so then maybe I should get one? Why do we even vote? It's not like the average American has any political experience, at least from Arty's point of view. If you don't know anything about something, just do what the expects say to do. Yea right.

Arty is not all wrong, but like many, he is using the climate crises to advance a totally different agenda (and at that at least he shows some honesty).  While we are not going to destroy the planet, we can make things nasty if we dont give a damn.  But let's be honest about it.  The air in Shanghai sucks!  But that is not caused by a paper mill in Upstate NY.

5 Pages1 2 3  Last