What is the name of the character disease that is egotists like Monbiot?

[oakpeak]

Is there a name for the behaviorial disease demonstrated by Monbiot
and his ilk? They loved their power to frighten, to shout at us, to
make headlines, to be in the news. Now, he should just slink away,
far, far away. But no, he's still here, as if we loved and needed
him, as if we would miss him. WHAT AN EGOTIST!!!!!!!!!! His mother
told him so many times that he was handsome, wonderful, truthful,
smart, used big words for his age group. Now that he's been PROVEN
WRONG, now, he tries for the world's greatest apology, mea culpa.

Go away. QUIT YOUR JOB, AS PEOPLE LIKE YOU HAVE CAUSED SO MANY OTHERS
TO LOSE THEIR JOBS.

Names for your disease: incompetent, arrogant, self-absorbed,
untruthful, powermad, disreputable, superficial, an embarassment, faux
journalist, pretender, fake, millii-vanilli, dumb. Oh, and your face
is ugly.

[Lila Smith]

Goodness gracious me.....I don't think Monbiot even reads what is posted in
this forum..I kid you not? are you hoping that GM is going to read those
words ??

Lila Smith
www.windwand.co.nz
Taranaki Tourism Website
www.windwand.co.nz/organickitchengarden.htm
Organic Kitchen Gardening
Mob 021230 7962
06 7512942
122 Ngamotu Road
New Plymouth
New Zealand

> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Monbiot Discussions" group.
> To post to this group, send email to monbiot...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> monbiot-discu...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/monbiot-discuss?hl=en.
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.79/2522 - Release Date: 11/23/09
19:45:00

[V Wood]

The Monbiot "apoolgy" which I assume the person posting this morning referred to....as you will note, GM is hardly giving in as this person seemed to be indicating.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/23/the-knights-carbonic/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email

The Knights Carbonic

Posted November 23, 2009

The conspiracy which proves that manmade global warming is a scam

By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian, 23rd November 2009
It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging(1). 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(5,6), 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.
But do these revelations justify the sceptics’ claims that this is “the final nail in the coffin” of global warming theory?(8,9) Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. 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. In the interests of open discourse, I feel obliged to reproduce it here.
“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.
www.monbiot.com
References:
1. http://www.anelegantchaos.org/
2. http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=914&filename=1219239172.txt
3. http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=490&filename=1107454306.txt
4. http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=891&filename=1212063122.txt
5. http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=307&filename=1051190249.txt
6. http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=484&filename=1106322460.txt
7. http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=419&filename=1089318616.txt
8. eg http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
9. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=116882
10. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081216.html

[V Wood]

Dear oakpeak,

I am overwhelmed.  Your intellect is unassailable.  Your grasp of the language without peer.  I am humbled, and left without the possibility of a credible response in the face of such power of logic.

With highest respect
V

> Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:07:19 -0800

> Subject: [Monbiot] What is the name of the character disease that is egotists like Monbiot?

> From: tom...@gmail.com
> To: monbiot...@googlegroups.com

[John Russell]

I wonder if I'm alone in thinking that Monbiot's response to the email hacking fiasco is a bit OTT and likely just to provoke the misdirected venom of idiots like 'oakleaf'.  I didn't even find it particularly funny.

I prefer serious responses like that of the 'real climate' website: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

Quote: "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?"

Best wishes,

JR


V Wood wrote:

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

 
Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.78/2521 - Release Date: 11/23/09 07:52:00

  

[TM Printing Ltd]

Journalism?

[Tanya Jones]

No, you're not alone, John - I too was disappointed that he missed the opportunity to set this business in an intelligent and calm context.  It's easy for him to overlook, I suppose, the fact that his column will be widely circulated among people desperate for something to attack and not just read by Guardian readers who get the joke. (Or those like me who've lived and worked near Redcar and would probably have noticed if there'd been an internationally renowned university there...)

 

best wishes

 

Tanya

[V Wood]

Agreed, John.  Monbiot is in a position of social responsibility.  I was very disappointed with his almost juvenile response, though he raised some good points.  The subject is far too sensitive to treat so carelessly in my opinion.  I'm sure he thought it would help to alleviate some of the tension by a bit of humour, but unfortunately, it seemed to me that it backfired on him.  It did not appear to be addressing the points of climate change as much as it was pointing fun at the sceptics - not a wise move in this context, I think.

Best
V

[armando_283]

Just substitute the word "Monbiot" with "the Jews" and you'll
understand how the Nazis came to power.

[oakpeak]

Below, I've quoted a poster at another discussion group:

You know, I am not someone who stands on a soapbox and starts shouting
“hang ‘em high”. I am seriously beginning to rethink that position. We
try to be civil and we get yelled at, we file freedom of information
requests and get ignored or threatened, we try and get other opinions
and those who speak out get blackballed, humiliated and shunned by the
so called “scientific community”. Maybe its time to not be so civil
anymore and start shouting back. After this, I think we have plenty to
shout about.

Nov 23, 2009 - 11:04 am
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/viscount-monckton-on-global-warminggate-they-are-criminals-pjm-exclusive/

My own questions for Monbiot:
1) Were you given a special tour of the new computer at Hadley Met,
because of your supportive writings in favor of AGW?
2) Were you invited to special lunches, dinners, teatimes,
celebrations, parties, at CRU / UEA / Hadley Met Center / etc. because
of your steadfast support of their work on AGW?
3) Were you the recipient of special awards, monies, gifts, honorable
mentions, diplomas, certificates, degrees, etc. from this gang of
liars and crooks?
4) You have a masters degree in zoology. Can you still do any of that
work? Have you done anything of fundamental value, even remotely
equal to the work of Steve McIntyre http://camirror.wordpress.com/ and
Anthony Watts http://wattsupwiththat.com/ ?
5) What on Earth keeps you going along your destructive, naive
behavior path?

[TM Printing Ltd]

Fine, oakpeak, but as mentioned earlier, none of us are sure that GM visits this list.

He does occasionally respond to posts in The Guardian's 'Comment is Free'. Maybe you should try that angle. We're of no help to you here.

David

[oakpeak]

I wrote a snappy cogent response to armando_283, but apparently it
wound up on the editor's cutting room floor, and the dog ate it.

(more later - have to run)

[John Russell]

In response to 'oakpeak'.

Monckton, Lawson, Delingpole and their ilk are people who do not even understand science -- never mind climate science -- so why should any weight be attributed to their opinions? It's like listening to the Pope's explanation of evolution. Or my opinion of string theory. It's utterly meaningless.  

Given that 97.5% of climatologists who actively published research on climate change agree that "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures" (Doran 2009); my question to you, Mr Oakpeak, is what qualifies you to make such outrageous statements on the subject of climate science?

Figure 1: Response to the survey question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009) General public data come from a 2008 Gallup poll.

As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures. Most striking is the divide between expert climate scientists (97.4%) and the general public (58%). The paper concludes "It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."

Scientific organisations endorsing the consensus

The following scientific organisations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
• Environmental Protection Agency
• NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
• American Geophysical Union
• American Institute of Physics
• National Center for Atmospheric Research
• American Meteorological Society
• The Royal Society of the UK
• Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
• American Association for the Advancement of Science

The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:

• Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
• Royal Society of Canada
• Chinese Academy of Sciences
• Academie des Sciences (France)
• Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
• Indian National Science Academy
• Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
• Science Council of Japan
• Russian Academy of Sciences
• Royal Society (United Kingdom)
• National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)

Additionally, the Academies of Science from another 8 countries (as well as several countries from the first list) also signed a joint statement endorsing the IPCC consensus:

• Australian Academy of Sciences
• Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
• Caribbean Academy of Sciences
• Indonesian Academy of Sciences
• Royal Irish Academy
• Academy of Sciences Malaysia
• Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
• Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

A survey of peer reviewed research

It is also worthwhile examining peer reviewed journals - scientists can have their opinions but they need to back it up with empirical evidence and research that survives the peer review process. A survey of all peer reviewed abstracts on the subject "global climate change" published between 1993 and 2003 show that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (eg - focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis). More on Naomi Oreskes' survey...

Klaus-Martin Schulte's list of studies rejecting the consensus

That is not to say there are no studies that reject the consensus position. Klaus-Martin Schulte surveyed peer reviewed abstracts from 2004 to February 2007 and claims 32 studies (6%) reject the consensus position. In these cases, it's instructive to read the studies to see whether they actually do refute the consensus and if so, what their arguments are. You can read a summary of Schulte's skeptic studies here...

The above information is attributed to http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

Note how every statement is backed up by references so that one can confirm the authenticity of the research: and compare this with the meaningless vitriolic diatribe of the monckton article. Can you see the difference?
   
You're clearly an angry man, mr oakpeak;  but I'll bet you're not as angry as I am at those that seek to deny -- through their fabrication and obfuscation -- the constantly accumulating evidence that humans are creating the biggest disaster the human race will have ever experienced. 

Best wishes,

JR

 ?
5) What on Earth keeps you going along your destructive, naive
behavior path?

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Monbiot Discussions" group.
To post to this group, send email to monbiot...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to monbiot-discu...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/monbiot-discuss?hl=en.

  

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

 
Version: 8.5.426 / Virus Database: 270.14.83/2526 - Release Date: 11/25/09 19:43:00

  

[armando_283]

Actually, you sent the snappy response to my personal email instead of
the google group.

But it's so much more emotionally satisfying to portray yourself as
the innocent, oppressed victim, isn't it.

[oakpeak]

When government funds research, and government has a point of view,
the result is, the only research which government funds is research
that supports government's point of view.
It is well apparent from the CRU e-mails that so-called "Peer review"
was corrupted and became meaningless.
If you had been visiting Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit .org website
over the past year instead of sucking up to Monbiot, you would have
learned that the journals which publish climate science research do
not require the authors to archive either the data or the computer
code. Without the data or the code, it is impossible for a "peer
reviewer" to do anything meaningful
Why does government support AGW? Because the people in government
want a one-world government.
All those little groups you list that have signed-on to the
"consensus" only reveal bureaucracy in action. Either they are
government agencies, or depend on government for their funding, and
don't dare stand in the way of an oncoming train.

Following are some relevant posts for you. Particularly shocking are
the farmer suicides as a result of big government in favor of AGW, and
draconian farm laws.

* * * * *

Gail Combs (03:07:46) :

Rob R (12:57:57) : said

“The fact that the global anomaly products from these two
organisations march in step does not constitute verification of either
or both.”

If the data sets presented as finished products did not show agreement
I would be very very surprised. We know they were talking to each
other and colluding on peer review, what better way to make people
think they are telling the truth than to have two data sets in fairly
close agreement. This presents “validation” of the graphs and if they
did not do this the scam would not have worked.

AJStrata (who works for NASA) explains how it is done.
“….you ask how good NOAA’s global data [can] be worse than local data
in Australia and elsewhere? It is simple (and trust me, I work for
NASA and this is not beyond the pale). They averaged it (or smeared
it) with other data to raise it up. They can rationalize why they need
to over ride or lower the weighting of the cooler data. They just need
to agree on some lame excuse to dilute good measurements with bad…..

Seriously. The way to fight back is to run scenarios with the same
data that takes out the smearing. Make the assumption the satellite
data is solid and that the ground based sensors are only there to do
local validation of the sat data. What is the answer when we process
the data with these assumptions, where we don’t ‘fill in’ holes by
averaging the two sets?….” http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/9887

Sorry Mr. Copeland if everyone is in on the scam, and they are , then
NONE of the data can be trusted until validated. That means we need to
look at the raw data and that is what AJStrata is doing. He also
addresses the error in the CRU data.

“…What surprised me was the one CRU document where CRU proves there is
no demonstrable global warming (even by their own ridiculously
optimistic assessment). Check out this graph from their report…

The title of this graph indicates this is the CRU computed sampling
(measurement) error in C for 1969. Note how large these sampling
errors are. They start at 0.5°C, which is the mark where any
indication of global warming is just statistical noise and not
reality. Most of the data is in the +/- 1°C range, which means any
attempt to claim a global increase below this threshold is
mathematically false. Imagine the noise in the 1880 data! You cannot
create detail (resolution) below what your sensor system can measure.
CRU has proven my point already – they do not have the temperature
data to detect a 0.8°C global warming trend since 1960, let alone
1880.

See: http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11420

So thank you Mr. Strata

* * * * *

Gail Combs (03:15:30) :

Dirk (13:00:16) :

Could someone who truly understands these plots explain the obvious
difference between the data presented by Icarus and the data presented
here?

REPLY: AJStrata is working on it here: http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11420

* * * * *

Gail Combs (03:26:08) :

jaypan (13:02:45) : Asked

“…Can’t we avoid confusion for the public by too many different
graphs?

How if we use only one of such pictures, explain it in detail, show it
over and over again, getting finally the stupid stick out of the
public mind?”

This is the graph you are looking for it gives the “Value Added” fudge
factor that causes the “official graphs” to show and increase in
temperature. It plots final – raw tempreature data.

” jcl (13:05:48) :

You just aren’t applying the right “adjustments”, that’s all:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif

Thanks JCL just want to make sure no one misses this graph. It is a
Large stake in the corpse of AGW

* * * * *

Gail Combs (05:52:00) :

JerryM (14:12:51) :
And ooh, wait! Dr. V. Ramanathan (the guy who launched all those UAV’s
into China’s and India’s “brown cloud” and confirmed what other
researchers were already quantifying – that black carbon (soot) is
warming the planet big time) probably contributes about one half as
much to global warming as CO2, a fact which the 2007 IPCC missed.
Maybe as much or even more, thereby exceeding CO2’s contributions. And
guess who produces more CO2 than the U.S. and 4 times as much soot,
and those ratios are climbing? The answer is: China! And these guys
are on an atmospheric polluting tear like never before seen in human
history.

Yes and where is Maurice Strong, the father of “global Warming now
living? – CHINA and WHAT is he doing? Working for a CONSTRUCTION
Company! CH2M HILL is a ” multinational firm providing engineering,
construction, operations and related services to public and private
clients in numerous industries on six continents…”

* * * * *

Gail Combs (06:46:46) :

O/T
Perhaps instead of calling our benefactor “hacker” or
“whistleblower” (s)he should be called the unofficial FOIA officer
since (s)he responded correctly and legally to a FOI request.

Sort of takes the wind out of the sails of the selfrightous Climate
Dementors.

* * * * *

Gail Combs (07:57:24) :

rbateman (15:33:17) Said

“that’s the problem. a major cooling event is due anytime now. as
usual smartsr^e thugocrats have exhibited their grasp of reality &
left a trail of fraud/self interest that has zeroed humanities chance
to respond to cold.
cold means less crops, more energy for heating, climate refugees
moving to the equatorial zones etc. but then, considering the twisted
minds of the thugocrats running this agenda maybe that’s the idea.

I think the elite are very well aware of a major cooling event being
due any time. That is why the World Trade Organization put food/Ag on
the trading table in 1995 and the World Bank/IMF SAPs are designed to
grab all the farmland they can. Also in 1996 the VP of Cargill got rid
of US grain stockpiling. That’s Dan Amstutz, the same VP who wrote the
WTO agreement on Ag. these are the result so far:

1 million poles to be removed from their farms – EU Cairlady
60% of Portugal’s farmers removed
Mexico – 1992 to 2002, the number of farms fell 75% – from 2.3 million
to 575, 000
And in India one farmer suicides every eight hours.
“The largest sustained waves of suicides in human history—is becoming
apparent. And as Sainath emphasizes, these numbers still underestimate
the disaster, since women farmers are excluded from the official
statistics… It is important that the figure of 150,000 farm suicides
is a bottom line estimate..” http://alternatives-international.net/article1394.html

This is the thugocrats response to possible famine:
“In summary, we have record low grain inventories globally as we move
into a new crop year. We have demand growing strongly. Which means
that going forward even small crop failures are going to drive grain
prices to record levels. As an investor, we continue to find these
long term trends…very attractive.” Food shortfalls predicted: 2008
http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/dancy/2008/0104.html

“Recently there have been increased calls for the development of a
U.S. or international grain reserve to provide priority access to food
supplies for Humanitarian needs. The National Grain and Feed
Association (NGFA) and the North American Export Grain Association
(NAEGA) strongly advise against this concept..Stock reserves have a
documented depressing effect on prices… and resulted in less
aggressive market bidding for the grains.” July 22, 2008 letter to
President Bush http://www.naega.org/images/pdf/grain_reserves_for_food_aid.pdf

I wonder if Old Icarus is in favor of mass starvation worldwide
because that is what I see being setup when I follow the World Food
supply threads. Worldwide regulations and patents sponsored by WTO/UN
that prevent the poor from growing their own food.

The Global Biodiversity Treaty is especially nasty. It is used to
steal seed from third world farmers so Monsanto et alcan patent the
genetics. Third world farmers then have to pay for the seed THEY
developed.

* * * * *

WxForecaster (12:41:23) :

And then comes Jeff Id’s tAV posting today of the Fox News report
regarding to what end uses the AGW cadre’s myoptic ’science’ has been
put to…
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/6529/
[b]The Religion of Global Government[/b]
Posted by Jeff Id on November 30, 2009

[quote]This is a stunner. Fox news just released some UN documents
which are pretty clearly worded as to their intent.

Conservatives have long recognized the UN agenda of global
socialization. It’s one of the main problems behind the global warming
religion, a religion who’s status becomes more official with each
passing day. A couple of documents have recently been reported at Fox
news outlining how the topics of one UN organization will be shifted
to achieve their wealth distribution agenda to the poor developing
nations in the Southern hemisphere.

The document discusses further expansion of the environmental
movement, including unelected committees to provide regulation and
enforcement of global law. As leftists they fail to notice that these
poor developing countries disadvantages are created by their leftist
governments. They believe religiously that it’s the Northern countries
fault that these poor disadvantaged communists cannot succeed. All
governments are created equal and we should prop up and pay these
dictators to help them achieve equal prosperity to the world. [/quote]

Add in the massive transfers of sovereign wealth envisaged through the
legally binding world political organizations such as the IMF and IPCC/
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change et al and one
begins to see the collusions, knowingly or not, that the CRU’s cadre
were/are aiding and abetting.

Much like many great conspiracies, once one pulls hard enough on a
single loose, exposed thread, the entire interwoven (‘One-World-Order/
Government’) fabric hopefully comes apart.

This, I believe, is what will be the true historical perspective
written about ‘ClimateGate’ — The only few questions remaining to be
answered are whether the interwoven cons will be fully exposed and
abrogated before full implementation is legally enshrined and/or will
we allow for true Climate science to be investigated, evaluated and
confirmed.

Eisenhower had it right in his 1961 farewell address — he just had the
wrong political entities…

[quote]In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by
the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise
of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our
liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted.
Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper
meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with
our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may
prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our
industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution
during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more
formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is
conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been
overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing
fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the
fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a
revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge
costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute
for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now
hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal
employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever
present – and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we
should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that
public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-
technological elite.[/quote]
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm

* * * * *

Vincent (12:42:01) :

“In my opinion, what is the real travesty of the global warming
ideology is the hijacking of climate science in the service of a
research agenda that has prevented science from investigating the full
range of natural climate variation, because that would be an
inconvenient truth.”

Obviously, this is the main point. The IPCC is a political
organisation mandated to seek out anthropogenic influences to the
exclusion of natural influences, and CRU have followed this ideology
fervently. However, since CRU have lost the original data, we cannot
be certain at all what has been the rate of temperature increase over
the twentieth century. Despite what these alarmists graphs show, it
still comes down to the same old problem – don’t worry about the data,
just trust us.

* * * * *

[John Russell]

You can rubbish the reports published by climate scientists in support of AGW all you like, Tom, but I haven't seen any original scientific research published by deniers. The serious deniers -- your Lawsons, Moncktons, Bookers and the like; those most often referenced by hangers-on -- are typically right-wingers drawn from the ranks of politics, law and economics, with very few of them having any grounding in a relevant science.  Long on rhetoric, short on substance.

As for the websites you mention, I for one am a regular reader: it's always good to know what the enemy is thinking.

Best wishes,

JR


oakpeak wrote:

* * * * *

Vincent (12:42:01) :

“In my opinion, what is the real travesty of the global warming
ideology is the hijacking of climate science in the service of a
research agenda that has prevented science from investigating the full
range of natural climate variation, because that would be an
inconvenient truth.”

Obviously, this is the main point. The IPCC is a political
organisation mandated to seek out anthropogenic influences to the
exclusion of natural influences, and CRU have followed this ideology
fervently. However, since CRU have lost the original data, we cannot
be certain at all what has been the rate of temperature increase over
the twentieth century. Despite what these alarmists graphs show, it
still comes down to the same old problem – don’t worry about the data,
just trust us.

* * * * *

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Monbiot Discussions" group.
To post to this group, send email to monbiot...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to monbiot-discu...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/monbiot-discuss?hl=en.

  

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

 
Version: 8.5.426 / Virus Database: 270.14.88/2538 - Release Date: 12/01/09 07:59:00

  

[oakpeak]

REVEALED: THE ABJECT CORRUPTION OF CLIMATE SCIENCE
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/01/lord-moncktons-summary-of-climategate-and-its-issues/

The gallant whistleblower now faces a police investigation at the
instigation of the University authorities desperate to look after
their own and to divert allegations of criminality elsewhere. His
crime? He had revealed what many had long suspected:

- A tiny clique of politicized scientists, paid by unscientific
politicians with whom they were financially and politically linked,
were responsible for gathering and reporting data on temperatures from
the palaeoclimate to today’s climate. The “Team”, as they called
themselves, were bending and distorting scientific data to fit a
nakedly political story-line profitable to themselves and congenial to
the governments that, these days, pay the bills for 99% of all
scientific research.

> The Climate Research Unit at East Anglia had profited to the tune
of at least $20 million in “research” grants from the Team’s
activities.

> The Team had tampered with the complex, bureaucratic processes of
the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, so as to exclude inconvenient
scientific results from its four Assessment Reports, and to influence
the panel’s conclusions for political rather than scientific reasons.

> The Team had conspired in an attempt to redefine what is and is
not peer-reviewed science for the sake of excluding results that did
not fit what they and the politicians with whom they were closely
linked wanted the UN’s climate panel to report.

> They had tampered with their own data so as to conceal
inconsistencies and errors.

> They had emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of
concealing a “decline” in temperatures in the paleoclimate.

> They had expressed dismay at the fact that, contrary to all of
their predictions, global temperatures had not risen in any
statistically-significant sense for 15 years, and had been falling for
nine years. They had admitted that their inability to explain it was
“a travesty”. This internal doubt was in contrast to their public
statements that the present decade is the warmest ever, and that
“global warming” science is settled.

> They had interfered with the process of peer-review itself by
leaning on journals to get their friends rather than independent
scientists to review their papers.

> They had successfully leaned on friendly journal editors to reject
papers reporting results inconsistent with their political viewpoint.

> They had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor,
solely because he did not share their willingness to debase and
corrupt science for political purposes.

> They had mounted a venomous public campaign of disinformation and
denigration of their scientific opponents via a website that they had
expensively created.

> Contrary to all the rules of open, verifiable science, the Team
had committed the criminal offense of conspiracy to conceal and then
to destroy computer codes and data that had been legitimately
requested by an external researcher who had very good reason to doubt
that their “research” was either honest or competent.

THE NATURE ‘TRICK’ TO ‘HIDE THE DECLINE’ IN TEMPERATURES

Among the most revealing of the emails released to the world by the
whistleblower was one dated November 1999. In that email, Professor
“Phil” Jones of the CRU wrote to Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and
Malcolm Hughes, the authors of the infamous “hockey stick” graph that
falsely abolished the medieval warm period:

Almost immediately after the news of Climategate broke, Professor
Jones told Investigative Magazine’s TGIF Edition that he “had no idea”
what he might have meant by the words “hide the decline”. He said:

“They’re talking about the instrumental data which is unaltered – but
they’re talking about proxy data going further back in time, a
thousand years, and it’s just about how you add on the last few years,
because when you get proxy data you sample things like tree rings and
ice cores, and they don’t always have the last few years. So one way
is to add on the instrumental data for the last few years.”

A few hours later, the science hate-crime website created by the Team
cobbled together a jumbled, snivelingly self-serving, and entirely
different pretext:

“The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature
paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction [the
‘hockey-stick’ graph of pre-instrumental temperatures over the past
1000 years in the Northern Hemisphere], 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 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 [another prominent member of the Team] maximum latewood tree
ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960
(this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem” … 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.”

Enter Steve McIntyre, the one who had first realized that the UN’s
climate panel in 2001 had used a corrupt graph that had falsely
abolished the medieval warm period with the aim of pretending that
today’s global temperatures are unprecedented in at least 1000 years.
Later that day his website, www.climateaudit.org, revealed the truth
about the conspirators’ “trick”.

In order to smooth a data series over a given time period, one must
pad it with artificial data beyond the endpoint of the real series.
However, when Mann, Bradley, and Hughes plotted instrumental data
against their reconstructions based on the varying widths of tree-
rings from ancient trees, their favourite form of proxy or pre-
instrumental reconstructed temperature, no smoothing method could
conceal the fact that after 1960 the tree-ring data series trended
downward, while the instrumental series trended upward. This was the
Team’s “divergence”:

“So Mann’s solution [‘Mike’s Nature trick’] was to use the
instrumental record for padding [both the proxy and the instrumental
data series], which changes the smoothed series to point upwards.”

[V Wood]

oakpeak or whatever your name is

You are really getting very tiring, and your message is entirely redundant.  You give no proof whatsoever for the filth flowing from your keyboard:it is conjecture only, and bitter conjecture at that.  Rather than simply spread your childish gossip, why not offer some hard proof?  I would ask three forms of proof. 

First, I would ask you present evidence  (not conjecture) that there is a global conspiracy on the part of climate scientists to attribute global warming to mankind.  You make a good deal of noise about that.  So put the proof on the table - documentary evidence from official bodies charged with investigating such violations.  If the case you present is so obvious and so well supported by hard evidence, then you should have no problem in giving us the results of such investigations.

Secondly, I would ask that you present peer-reviewed evidence that global warming is not happening.  Here, folks like you can't seem to make up their minds whether global warming is happening or not.  On one side of your mouth you indicate that global warming is not happening, that scientists are falsifying the data.  And out of the other side of your collective mouths you say that global warming is not man-induced.  Now, please tell me which is true - warming or not?  Not conjecture, but evidence please.

Lastly, I would ask you to offer peer-reviewed evidence that global warming (if you do believe it is happening -  see above) can not be attributable to the actions of humankind because it is the result of X ('X' being whatever you desire to propose).  In this please indicate exactly which processes are really responsible and kindly supply supporting evidence that this is true.

This is your big chance to come forth with the evidence from your small group of persecuted holders of real truth.  Give us the evidence.  Place references to the peer-reviewed papers supporting the above right here, right now, for all to see. 

Let's have a discussion not on personalities, or deep, hidden global conspiracies, but on facts.  Let's discuss the data.  Let's discuss what is happening globally.  You present evidence that the world's glaciers are not receding, that the Arctic ice is not thinning, that Antarctica is not warming, that biodiversity is decreasing, that the migratory patterns of animals are not changing, that animals are not moving their habitats northward as the seasons become milder, that spring is not arriving earlier in many places causing disruptions to natural processes, that droughts are not becoming longer and drier, that flooding is not becoming more widespread and common, that the seas are not rising, that Greenland ice is not melting, that the seas are not becoming more acidified, that the coral reefs are not being damaged, or any other subject you might want to present evidence on. 

I'll even go one further step with you.  Obviously, you believe that a huge amount of REAL data and valid papers are being suppressed by the powers that be.  And that such papers are not getting their fair chance due to the conspiracy of the peer review process.  Well, I would ask that you bring forward some of those papers as well, so we can have a real discussion around real issues, and not around 'conspiracies', flawed review processes, funding discrimination, etc.

"Bring it on", in the words of a recent Emperor.  Let's discuss the facts.

V



> Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 17:18:52 -0800
> Subject: [Monbiot] Re: What is the name of the character disease that is egotists like Monbiot?
> From: tom...@gmail.com
> To: monbiot...@googlegroups.com
>

[Lila Smith]

bring it on!!   wow is this our Victor...............he he......ruffled your feathers has he !

 

Lila Smith
www.windwand.co.nz
Taranaki Tourism Website
www.windwand.co.nz/organickitchengarden.htm
Organic Kitchen Gardening
Mob 021230 7962
06 7512942
122 Ngamotu Road
New Plymouth
New Zealand

[V Wood]

They never, ever bring facts to the table to discuss....only insults, childish gossip and wagging tongues.  I refuse to deal with them further unless they put forward something real to talk around.

---

From: lil...@ihug.co.nz
To: monbiot...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Monbiot] Re: What is the name of the character disease that is egotists like Monbiot?
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 21:42:36 +1300

[John Russell]

I'm going to disagree with you on this, Victor. They often bring facts to the table but they've usually cherry-picked them and present them out of context  -- the classic one being '1998 was the hottest year on record'.

Where I will agree with you is that they won't engage in discussion. They present an argument and then disappear. They then reappear later and repeat the same basic argument again, completely ignoring any counter arguments that have appeared in the meantime. It's reminiscent of resistance or terrorist tactics and in this context it's highly destructive. 

Best wishes,

JR


V Wood wrote:

 
Version: 8.5.426 / Virus Database: 270.14.90/2540 - Release Date: 12/02/09 07:33:00