The Emails Conspiracy which proves that manmade global warming is a scam
Sean
published recently. You can't trust anyone these days, and I feel so
gullible and stupid now.
It's no use pretending that this isn't a major blow. Those emails from the
climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be
MORE damaging.
I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I'm dismayed and deeply
shaken by them.
Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in
emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments
have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no
spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to
prevent scientific data from being released(2,3), and even to destroy
material that was subject to a freedom of information request(4).
Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication
of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(7). I believe that the head of the
unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the
emails should be re-analysed.
They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of
several hundred lines of evidence. To bury manmade climate change, a far
wider conspiracy would have to be revealed.
Luckily for the sceptics, and to my intense disappointment, I have now been
passed the damning email which confirms that the entire science of global
warming is indeed a scam. Had I known that it was this easy to rig the
evidence, I wouldn't have wasted years of my life promoting a bogus
discipline. Anyway fwiw here the latest email content i have seen.
"From: ernst.ka...@redcar.ac.uk
Sent: 29th October 2009
To: The Knights Carbonic
Gentlemen, the culmination of our great plan approaches fast. What the
Master called "the ordering of men's affairs by a transcendent world state,
ordained by God and answerable to no man", which we now know as Communist
World Government, advances towards its climax at Copenhagen. For 185 years
since the Master, known to the laity as Joseph Fourier, launched his scheme
for world domination, the entire physical science community has been working
towards this moment.
The early phases of the plan worked magnificently. First the Master's
initial thesis - that the release of infrared radiation is delayed by the
atmosphere - had to be accepted by the scientific establishment. I will not
bother you with details of the gold paid, the threats made and the blood
spilt to achieve this end. But the result was the elimination of the
naysayers and the disgrace or incarceration of the Master's rivals. Within
35 years the 3rd Warden of the Grand Temple of the Knights Carbonic (our
revered prophet John Tyndall) was able to "demonstrate" the Master's thesis.
Our control of physical science was by then so tight that no major
objections were sustained.
More resistence was encountered (and swiftly despatched) when we sought to
install the 6th Warden (Svante Arrhenius) first as professor of physics at
Stockholm University, then as rector. From this position he was able to
project the Master's second grand law - that the infrared radiation trapped
in a planet's atmosphere increases in line with the quantity of carbon
dioxide the atmosphere contains. He and his followers (led by the Junior
Warden Max Planck) were then able to adapt the entire canon of physical and
chemical science to sustain the second law.
Then began the most hazardous task of all: our attempt to control the
instrumental record. Securing the consent of the scientific establishment
was a simple matter. But thermometers had by then become widely available,
and amateur meteorologists were making their own readings. We needed to show
a steady rise as industrialisation proceeded, but some of these unfortunates
had other ideas. The global co-option of police and coroners required
unprecedented resources, but so far we have been able to cover our tracks.
The over-enthusiasm of certain of the Knights Carbonic in 1998 was most
regrettable. The high reading in that year has proved impossibly costly to
sustain. Those of our enemies who have yet to be silenced maintain that the
lower temperatures after that date provide evidence of global cooling, even
though we have ensured that eight of the ten warmest years since 1850 have
occurred since 2001(10). From now on we will engineer a smoother
progression.
Our co-option of the physical world has been just as successful. The
thinning of the Arctic ice cap was a masterstroke. The ring of secret
nuclear power stations around the Arctic Circle, attached to giant immersion
heaters, remains undetected, as do the space-based lasers dissolving the
world's glaciers.
Altering the migratory and reproductive patterns of the world's wildlife has
proved more challenging. Though we have now asserted control over the world's
biologists, there is no accounting for the unauthorised observations of
farmers, gardeners, bird-watchers and other troublemakers. We have therefore
been forced to drive migrating birds, fish and insects into higher
latitudes, and to release several million tonnes of plant pheromones every
year to accelerate flowering and fruiting. None of this is cheap, and ever
more public money, secretly diverted from national accounts by compliant
governments, is required to sustain it.
The co-operation of these governments requires unflagging effort. The
capture of George W. Bush, a late convert to the cause of Communist World
Government, was made possible only by the threatened release of footage
filmed by a knight at Yale, showing the future president engaged in coitus
with a Ford Mustang. Most ostensibly-capitalist governments remain apprised
of where their real interests lie, though I note with disappointment that we
have so far failed to eliminate Vaclav Klaus. Through the offices of
compliant states, the Master's third grand law has been accepted: world
government will be established under the guise of controlling manmade
emissions of greenhouse gases.
Keeping the scientific community in line remains a challenge. The national
academies are becoming ever more querulous and greedy, and require higher
pay-offs each year. The inexplicable events of the past month, in which the
windows of all the leading scientific institutions were broken and a horse's
head turned up in James Hansen's bed, appear to have staved off the
immediate crisis, but for how much longer can we maintain the consensus?
Knights Carbonic, now that the hour of our triumph is at hand, I urge you
all to redouble your efforts. In the name of the Master, go forth and
terrify.
Professor Ernst Kattweizel, University of Redcar. 21st Grand Warden of the
Temple of the Knights Carbonic."
This is the kind of conspiracy the deniers need to reveal to show that
manmade climate change is a con. The hacked emails are a hard knock, but the
science of global warming withstands much more than that.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/23/the-knights-carbonic/
<grin>
Sean
Why the sudden surge in climate change denial? Could it be about something
else altogether?
By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian, 2nd November 2009
There is no point in denying it: we're losing. Climate change denial is
spreading like a contagious disease. It exists in a sphere which cannot be
reached by evidence or reasoned argument; any attempt to draw attention to
scientific findings is greeted with furious invective. This sphere is
expanding with astonishing speed.
A survey last month by the Pew Research Centre suggests that the proportion
of Americans who believe there's solid evidence that the world has been
warming over the past few decades has fallen from 71% to 57% in just 18
months(1). Another survey, conducted in January by Rasmussen Reports,
suggests that, due to a sharp rise since 2006, US voters who believe that
global warming is the result of natural causes (44%) now outnumber those who
believe it is caused by human action (41%)(2).
A study by the website Desmogblog shows that the number of internet pages
proposing that manmade global warming is a hoax or a lie more than doubled
in 2008(3). The Science Museum's Prove it! exhibition asks online readers to
endorse or reject a statement that they've seen the evidence and want
governments to take action. As of yesterday afternoon, 1006 people had
endorsed it and 6110 had rejected it(4). On Amazon.co.uk, books championing
climate change denial are currently ranked at 1,2,4,5,7 and 8 in the global
warming category(5). Never mind that they've been torn to shreds by
scientists and reviewers, they are beating the scientific books by miles.
What is going on?
It certainly doesn't reflect the state of the science, which has hardened
dramatically over the past two years. If you don't believe me, open any
recent edition of Science or Nature or any peer-reviewed journal
specialising in atmospheric or environmental science. Go on, try it. The
debate about global warming that's raging on the internet and in the
rightwing press does not reflect any such debate in the scientific journals.
An American scientist I know suggests that these books and websites cater to
a new literary market: people with room-temperature IQs. He didn't say
whether he meant Fahrenheit or Centigrade. But this can't be the whole
story. Plenty of intelligent people have also declared themselves sceptics.
"Sean" <he...@home.net> wrote in message
news:4b0c3104$0$30507$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Bret Cahill
more natural than for humans to get into their gas guzzling SUVs and
drive to work?
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> else altogether?
>
> By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian, 2nd November 2009
>
> There is no point in denying it: we're losing. Climate change denial is
> spreading like a contagious disease.
Few are going to worry about polar bears when they are worring about
their own economic situations. What they are really telling the
pollsters is, "STFU about AGW until we have some economic security.
AGW is seen as just another way for rich liberals to priss around, not
as something that'll actually threaten their pocketbook. Until a
_direct_ connection is made between their economic security and AGW
they will deny AGW.
Bret Cahill
Michael Gordge
> Why the sudden surge in climate change denial?
Ewe stupid commie cunt, burden of proof is upon those who assert the
positive and ewe fucking anti-progress therefore anti-human commmie
retards have no proof what so ever that (1) Co2 makes the globe (2)
ewe have no proof no evidence that the globe will get colder if man
produces 0.0000000001% less of the earth's total gas, man made global
warming has never been anything else but a commie scam and that is not
a fucking denial it is stating a fact.
MG
Bret Cahill
> ewe have no proof no evidence that the globe will get colder if man
> produces 0.0000000001% less of the earth's total gas,
Randroids are too dumb to even explain why they don't fall off the
bottom of the earth.
Bret Cahill
Michael Gordge
> Bret Cahill
Stop evading the question Cahill;
What fucking use is speaking freely while the state is holding a gun
at the trader's head dictating the terms and conditions of his trade?
MG
Bret Cahill
> at the trader's head
Who is holding what gun?
And in what state?
And whose head?
Remember, no dodgin'.
Bret Cahill
tooly
>
> - Show quoted text -
All this nonsense aside, one would have to be very naive to NOT think
anti-capitalism activists have not seen this CO2 problem as a perfect
opportunity to advance their goals...and are now pouncing as hard as
they can. From here on out, there are so many fiddling hands in the
pot with political design that I doubt the public will ever again get
a straight answer. And before we go sending the world into
impoverishment and misery [and most likely a lot of death], the burden
of proof remains with those advocating change...now tainted all the
hell with suspicion.
1Z
More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no
evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros
nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the
MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the
falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/
communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down
to the hackers also being in on the plot though.
Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact and the
conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the monolith that
is sometimes imagined. People working constructively to improve joint
publications; scientists who are friendly and agree on many of the big
picture issues, disagreeing at times about details and engaging in
‘robust’ discussions; Scientists expressing frustration at the
misrepresentation of their work in politicized arenas and complaining
when media reports get it wrong; Scientists resenting the time they
have to take out of their research to deal with over-hyped nonsense.
None of this should be shocking.
It’s obvious that the noise-generating components of the blogosphere
will generate a lot of noise about this. but it’s important to
remember that science doesn’t work because people are polite at all
times. Gravity isn’t a useful theory because Newton was a nice person.
QED isn’t powerful because Feynman was respectful of other people
around him. Science works because different groups go about trying to
find the best approximations of the truth, and are generally very
competitive about that. That the same scientists can still all agree
on the wording of an IPCC chapter for instance is thus even more
remarkable.
No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha”
phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning
quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature
reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick
of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie
from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The
paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper
on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’
is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so
that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use
the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”,
rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing
problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known
that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges
from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known
as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this
paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in
Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always
recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so
while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is
‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely
appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
The timing of this particular episode is probably not coincidental.
But if cherry-picked out-of-context phrases from stolen personal
emails is the only response to the weight of the scientific evidence
for the human influence on climate change, then there probably isn’t
much to it.
There are of course lessons to be learned. Clearly no-one would have
gone to this trouble if the academic object of study was the mating
habits of European butterflies. That community’s internal discussions
are probably safe from the public eye. But it is important to remember
that emails do seem to exist forever, and that there is always a
chance that they will be inadvertently released. Most people do not
act as if this is true, but they probably should.
It is tempting to point fingers and declare that people should not
have been so open with their thoughts, but who amongst us would really
be happy to have all of their email made public?
-------------------------------------------------------------
REALCLIMATE
Bret Cahill
> evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros
> nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the
> MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the
> falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/
> communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down
> to the hackers also being in on the plot though.
A couple snippets from Emails is enough to discredit an entire field
according to rightard science.
In reality if Einstein himself denounced relativity today it would be
interesting but it would no persuade other scientists.
The very fact that rightards will grab onto _any_ scrap of evidence
that might be spun in their favor pretty much dooms the GOP.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> anti-capitalism activists have not seen this CO2 problem as a perfect
> opportunity to advance their goals...
It's the dumbest possible way to defeat Repugliar economic scams.
The easy way is to just pop Repugliars with The Question:
Tom Sr.
> A couple snippets from Emails is enough to discredit an entire field
> according to rightard science.
What is also telling is that the climate-change deniers are obviously
making the *false assumption* they understand what these emails, many
taken out of context, actually mean.
One obvious example is the use of the word "trick" in the phrase
"Mike's Nature trick". The deniers assume that this means some type
of falsehood -- when in fact it is mean as a way of correcting a
problem due to the development of better technology.
The most basic failing of the deniers in this matter is due to the
fact that these are informal, scientific messages *between*
scientists. They do not realize -- or accept -- the fact that what is
being discussed is beyond their own knowledge.
Thus they simplify it into concepts they *can* "understand" -- even
though this dumb-downed "understanding" actually distorts the *true
meaning* of these documents.
This is all, very sadly, just so typical.
-Tom Sr.
Tom Sr.
One of my all-time favorite STUPID "explantions" by CC-deniers for
global warning *not* being caused by humans was because it was being
caused by cow farts.
They never even thought of asking the question of WHY there were so
*many* cows to fart.
-Tom Sr.