Climate Gate 2.00 : Shocking Corruption Revealed in Emails!

Yup - the Club Of Rome's agenda continues to be rolled out by stealth in the guise of GW legislation - only the media aren't bothering to let you in on it - it's to save the planet don't you know!

Durban: what the media are not telling you Posted on December 9, 2011 by Anthony Watts By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley in Durban, South Africa

DURBAN, South Africa — “No high hopes for Durban.” “Binding treaty unlikely.” “No deal this year.” Thus ran the headlines. The profiteering UN bureaucrats here think otherwise. Their plans to establish a world government paid for by the West on the pretext of dealing with the non-problem of “global warming” are now well in hand. As usual, the mainstream media have simply not reported what is in the draft text which the 194 states parties to the UN framework convention on climate change are being asked to approve.

A new International Climate Court will have the power to compel Western nations to pay ever-larger sums to third-world countries in the name of making reparation for supposed “climate debt”. The Court will have no power over third-world countries. Here and throughout the draft, the West is the sole target. “The process” is now irredeemably anti-Western.

The real lunacy comes in the small print – all of it in 8-point type, near-illegibly printed on grubby, recycled paper. Every fashionable leftist idiocy is catered for.

Talking of which, note in passing that Rajendra Pachauri, the railroad engineer who, in the topsy-turvy looking-glass world of international climate insanity is the “science” chairman of the UN’s climate panel, has admitted that no one has been talking about climate science at the climate conference here in Durban.

Not really surprising, given no real warming for getting on for two decades, no recent sea-level rise, no new record Arctic ice-melt, fewer hurricanes than at almost any time in 30 years, no Pacific atolls disappearing beneath the waves.

wattsupwiththat.com...-52760

reply to post by JohhnyBGood


Climate Court = illegal

They must be smoking some illegal substances over there.

Originally posted by mbkennel

If I don't know how much CO2 is in the air... how am I to determine if the method is that much more accurate than a previous method? ... Moreover... how do you know how much CO2 is in the air if you don't have an accurate way of measuring it?

Oy vey.

How about this: you create a gas sample from first principles where you know exactly how much CO2 is there? This isn't my field at all but one could imagine complete combustion of a known amount of purified hydrocarbon on a platinum catalyst or something. Somebody probably started doing things like this in the 1880's with a continual development for a long time. We also have good idea about infrared scattering and absorption because we also know that molecules are made out of atoms which obey quantum mechanics, so there's forward ways of calibrating measurements as well.

Physical chemists have been interested in measuring all sorts of things for at least 100 years with a variety of analytical techniques and virtually all of them had their basis developed and calibrated before anybody other than a few eggheads thought one bit about global warming from greenhouse effect. There's a widespread body of physical science and chemistry which has proved enormously successful in measuring and predicting all sorts of effects. It just so happened that some planetary scientists didn't turn off their brain and knowledge of physics when it came to something which could have major implications to society.


It's idiotic to attack rock solid sound measurements.

Dammit mbkennel, you weren't supposed to answer that question! Don't you know we're apparently being "mind-#ed" here?

It's funny how that challenge was posed as if it's supposed to make our heads explode, as if it doesn't simply have a series of entirely logical straightforward answers.

The absurdity of this whole little "game" Aim64C apparently thinks he's playing with us reminds me very much of this:

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
It's really a good laugh, the websites you denialists ACTUALLY POST HERE trying to show us "evidence" and "science".

You're posting links to infowars/prisonplanet, right-wing political blogs, denier websites, and cherry-picked news articles (that don't even say what you seem to think they say). How stupid can you people be??

i actually feel sorry for you.

on the last page i posted some choice quotes from the emails talking about avoiding FOIA requests, deleting data, and reducing past heat cycles to make the present one look higher. one email admitted that the sun could account for ALL the climate change we've seen.

care to explain how deleting files and manipulating data is scientific? i thought not.

Seriously? You're seriously going to play good guy on that??

NO. There were at least THREE separate/independent studies of EVERY SINGLE HACKED EMAIL from CRU, and you know what they found?? ZERO WRONGDOING. There was very light/casual/non-serious talk about suspicion of FOIA requests, AND FOR GOOD REASON! The people making FOIA requests were paid-off DENIERS who had a history of perverting the actual data, placing it out of context, and using it against the researchers who actually produced it.

What they also found is that THE SCIENTISTS NEVER DELETED OR HID ANY DATA WHATSOEVER IN THEIR FINAL REPORTS/STUDIES.

You have NOTHING.

The professional liar, "Lord" Monckton, gets his ass handed to him once again.

THE LATEST INSTALLMENT!

reply to post by NoHierarchy


Except those studies wern't independent at all were they - they were composed of and chaired by AGW proponents!

Once this bandwagon got rolling with Billions upon billions of $ being spent upon it - the political capital of too many people to mention behind it - there is no way on gods earth they are going to let a few scientists dishonesty derail it for them.

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

Except those studies wern't independent at all were they - they were composed of and chaired by AGW proponents!

Wrong. But I'm going to ask you to PROVE IT anyway!

Once this bandwagon got rolling with Billions upon billions of $ being spent upon it - the political capital of too many people to mention behind it - there is no way on gods earth they are going to let a few scientists dishonesty derail it for them.

Are you SERIOUSLY going to call the scientific community CORRUPT and completely IGNORE the fossil fuel industry, the politicians, and the media who TOW THE LINE of AGW denial because they're controlled by large corporations (i.e. fossil fuel industries)??

People like you are a real piece of work ("work" substituted for a far more appropriate and simultaneously inappropriate word). Like all right-wingers, you FLIP accusations laid upon you, ones that fit YOU and your ilk better, and lay them on your opponents. If your opponents have called you corrupt and beholden to money, you flip it and accuse scientists of the same thing. I can't believe the nerve, lies, and stupidity with which you conduct discussion/debate, you seriously need to be stopped (along with bastions of propaganda like Fox News).

NEWS FLASH! The media gives a DENIAL slant, half of politicians NEVER DO A THING ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING, half of THOSE don't even BELIEVE in it, the half of politicians that DO acknowledge AGW barely lift a FINGER to try to solve it! EVERY SINGLE DENIER ARGUMENT HAS BEEN DEBUNKED OVER AND OVER. And every public figure which spews global warming denial has PROVEN links to fossil fuel industry, both ideological and financial. The corruption and conflicts of interest are almost ENTIRELY on the side of denial. Thousands of scientists all over the world are NOT lying to us for freaking GRANT money. The amount of subsidies for fossil fuels and agriculture completely DWARFS anything spent on renewable energy or green initiatives. And the vast majority of PROFIT and DIRTY MONEY are on the side of deniers, hands down, end of story.

You've got NOTHING, once again.

For the first time, the numbers from government documents have been compiled in one place. It’s time to start talking of “Monopolistic Science”. It’s time to expose the lie that those who claim “to save the planet” are the underdogs. And it’s time to get serious about auditing science, especially when it comes to pronouncements that are used to justify giant government programs and massive movements of money.

Who audits the IPCC? The Summary

The US government has provided over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, foreign aid, and tax breaks. Despite the billions: “audits” of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of the theory and compete with a well funded highly organized climate monopoly. They have exposed major errors.

Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008. Banks are calling for more carbon-trading. And experts are predicting the carbon market will reach $2 – $10 trillion making carbon the largest single commodity traded. Meanwhile in a distracting sideshow, Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.

The large expenditure in search of a connection between carbon and climate creates enormous momentum and a powerful set of vested interests. By pouring so much money into one theory, have we inadvertently created a self-fulfilling prophesy instead of an unbiased investigation? Read the Full Report at the Science and Public Policy Institute.

reply to post by NoHierarchy


joannenova.com.au...

As I have already detailed in previous posts the funding is entirely lopsided towards the warmist side by orders of magnitude even from the 'evil oil industry' - despite the warmists using any slight oil industry connection to declare sceptical scientists 'corrupt'.

This is science being run as a (leftist) political strategy - instead of the self defined moral high ground, there is manufactured 'scientific consensus'

Instead of stranglehold on academia there is a stranglehold on the peer review process' - and of course the entire educational establishment turned into a propaganda machine.

As usual, the leftist dominated media reports uncritically on their agenda, whilst all opposing voices are demonised and shut down.

Science is simply the last of the institutions to fall to the Grammscian 'long march through the institutions'

Except those studies wern't independent at all were they - they were composed of and chaired by AGW proponents!

This argument is totally nonsensical.

Of course studies on global warming are by AGW proponents. Because that's what the studies and evidence shows so it's what people in the field will be proponents of. That's the purpose of research. To.. you know... figure things out, as opposed to discover something then believe in the opposite.

If their own studies showed that global warming was not occurring or was not man-made, then would they be biased if they didn't support AGW? Of course not.

As I have already detailed in previous posts the funding is entirely lopsided towards the warmist side by orders of magnitude even from the 'evil oil industry' - despite the warmists using any slight oil industry connection to declare sceptical scientists 'corrupt'.

You're making the assumption that scientific funding is specifically for showing that AGW is true. Which you haven't shown at all.

Why exactly would the government want global warming to be true? It makes no sense.[

Originally posted by C0bzz

Except those studies wern't independent at all were they - they were composed of and chaired by AGW proponents!

This argument is totally nonsensical.

Of course studies on global warming are by AGW proponents. Because that's what the studies and evidence shows so it's what people in the field will be proponents of. That's the purpose of research. To.. you know... figure things out, as opposed to discover something then believe in the opposite.

If their own studies showed that global warming was not occurring or was not man-made, then would they be biased if they didn't support AGW? Of course not.

As I have already detailed in previous posts the funding is entirely lopsided towards the warmist side by orders of magnitude even from the 'evil oil industry' - despite the warmists using any slight oil industry connection to declare sceptical scientists 'corrupt'.

.

edit on 12/12/11 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

So much confusion and wrong thinking - where to even begin!!?

Firstly the 'studiies' I referred to were the 3 climategate enquiries - widely dismissed as complete whitewashes.

Of course studies on global warming are by AGW proponents

Um...really I thought they were supposed to be by 'disinterested scientists' trying to gather facts. - but then you go on to contradict yourself - so who the hell knows what your trying to say.

As for the rest of it - Jeeze life is too short - JUST READ THE POSTS!!!!

reply to post by NoHierarchy

Are you SERIOUSLY going to call the scientific community CORRUPT and completely IGNORE the fossil fuel industry, the politicians, and the media who TOW THE LINE of AGW denial because they're controlled by large corporations (i.e. fossil fuel industries)??

People like you are a real piece of work ("work" substituted for a far more appropriate and simultaneously inappropriate word). Like all right-wingers, you FLIP accusations laid upon you, ones that fit YOU and your ilk better, and lay them on your opponents. If your opponents have called you corrupt and beholden to money, you flip it and accuse scientists of the same thing. I can't believe the nerve, lies, and stupidity with which you conduct discussion/debate, you seriously need to be stopped (along with bastions of propaganda like Fox News).

First, who the hell are you to demand that anyone prove anything to you? You are already committed to an agenda that contradicts common sense, the scientific method and obsevervable facts.

Second, one of the first principles I learned in school was that, "if you have the facts, argue the facts;" "if you have the law, argue the law;" and, if you do not have the law or the facts, "shoot the messenger."

In this light, I find it very enlightening that instead of showing how Pachauri, Jones, Mann, et al, were correct in their misrepresentations and exaggerations, the AGW believers and prophets revert to ad hominem and ridicule of the source.

If AGW had any legitimate scientific legs to stand on, it would invite skepticism, to emphasize the "falsifiablilty" of any one or all of itrs base theories.

Instead, any challenge to the "conventioanl wisdom" is treated with derision.

This is not "science," it is gospel, dogma and doctrine.

jw

reply to post by NoHierarchy

and you know what they found?? ZERO WRONGDOING.

so that quote about "don't let the dirty laundry air" is just casual banter, and telling people to hide behind FOIA requests is science as usual? what about the emails that talk of altering past temperature data to make it look like it's warmer now, or the ones admitting there is huge political pressure?

i can read the emails for myself, thanks. their intentions are clear.

i can see you'll support AGW no matter what. i could care less which side is right, i have no stake in it, but i believe the earth goes through cycles all the time.

a little problem for you: how can you say there is nothing wrong with the emails when one of them says that the sun could account for ALL changes? it's a bit like the "this statement is false" logical paradox. for you to say there is nothing wrong with them, then you're accepting that email is correct, thereby disproving AGW.

would you provide a link to the "three independent reviews" please? i'd like to review them if they exist.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

i can read the emails for myself, thanks.

I like this idea

Let's all do this together.


How about we start here:

a little problem for you: how can you say there is nothing wrong with the emails when one of them says that the sun could account for ALL changes?

Is this the email you're referring to?

Although I agree that GHGs are important in the 19th/20th century (especially
since the 1970s), if the weighting of solar forcing was stronger in the models,
surely this would diminish the significance of GHGs.
[...] it seems to me that by weighting the solar irradiance more strongly in the
models, then much of the 19th to mid 20th century warming can be explained from
the sun alone.

reply to post by mc_squared

that's the one. mid 20th century is around 1950. the sun is quite powerful, and co2 emissions cannot compare.

remember in the 70's when there was a huge ice age scare? same kind of thing. the climate cycles about, and i'm more inclined to believe it has more to do with the sun and the specific region of space we're moving through at the moment. relatively speaking, of course. "moment" is more around a century.

I've been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process. Hard to do, as not everybody will remember to do it. I also suspect that as national measures to reduce emissions begin to affect people's lives, we are all going to get more of this. We can cope with op-ed pieces, but these FOI requests take time, as the whole process of how we all work has to be explained to FOI-responsible people at each institution.

now, so you don't accuse me of cherry picking, here is a write up from daily tech that goes over the emails that resulted in the above statement. doesn't get more damning than "one way to cover yourself would be to delete all emails".
www.dailytech.com...
assuming they followed jones' advice to delete emails, i wonder how much evidence was lost.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

Ok, one at a time though please.

I don't want this discussion to get convoluted in a sea of back and forth conclusion-jumping like all the others.


This is a big part of the reason why there's such a polarized dialogue on this subject: People get an idea in their head and just turn around, run with it, and never look back.

That's when everything becomes about fulfilling your own set of pre-determined conclusions rather than looking at the full story open-mindedly and objectively (i.e. skeptically).


So there are two sides to the FOI story:

- One is that the scientists were hiding, manipulating data - and thus evading requests for transparency on that information.

- The other is that the scientists were tired of being continuously harassed by a group of deniers, who only sought to manipulate and misrepresent their data against them (amongst the less-educated general public). There are indeed many cases of this exact thing happening, and I can show you numerous examples. But again - we can get to all that in due time.




Right now I just want to know exactly what it is about this particular email that you find so incriminating?


You already correctly pointed out that they are referring to warming up to the mid 20th century, i.e. around 1950 - so how is this "secret" email any different from what scientists have already stated publically numerous times? For example - here's what NASA has to say about it on their global warming page:

Climate model simulations that consider only natural solar variability and volcanic aerosols since 1750—omitting observed increases in greenhouse gases—are able to fit the observations of global temperatures only up until about 1950. After that point, the decadal trend in global surface warming cannot be explained without including the contribution of the greenhouse gases added by humans.

So what is this email supposed to even reveal - where's the discrepancy?

reply to post by mc_squared

that bit from nasa goes above and beyond the email from the cru. in the cru email, the man is saying that GHG's are "important" but that all of the climate change could just as easily be attributed to the sun if they took it into account more in their models.

i'm very against pollution and dirtying up the atmosphere. i think an international standard for polluting should be implemented to keep nations like china from doing all the dirty work as other countries use the rare earth metals refined in such places, but then detest china's pollution. it's more than a bit hypocritical.

what i'm completely against is a carbon tax. after that? meh. i don't think humans are effecting the climate on a global scale with co2 emissions. saying it has no effect whatsoever is akin to dumping 500 gallons of water into the ocean and saying it didn't raise the level at all.

from what i've read, jones et al haven't been practicing honest science. all this talk of deleting data...i should hardly think something that drastic and scandalous would be necessary if it was only to keep 3rd parties from inaccurately portraying data. and honestly? people are manipulative and will lie and misrepresent data if it furthers their goals, but even if that is the case, the climate researchers don't have the right to keep that data from anyone who wants it.

you sound very sensible, which is rare...most discussions with people are more like two fans who like rival football teams. they can't tell you why they support their team, but they'll defend them against common sense to the death.

An Open Letter to Dr. Phil Jones of the UEA CRU
Posted on November 27, 2011 by Willis Eschenbach Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Dear Dr. Jones:

You and I have been interacting, albeit at a distance, since I first asked you for your data some five years ago. I asked for your data in part because I was astounded by your answer to Warwick Hughes when he asked for the same data. You replied to Warwick at that time, “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

............................................sometimelater.........................

So when my FOI request came along, you were caught. You were legally required to produce data you couldn’t locate. Rather than tell the truth and say “I can’t find it”, you chose to lie. Hey, it was only a small lie, and it was for the Noble Cause of saving the world from Thermageddon.

So you had David tell me the data was available on the web. You knew that was a lie. David, apparently, didn’t realize it was a lie, at least at first. You hoped your Noble Lie would satisfy me, that I would get discouraged, and you could move on. But I asked again, and when I called you on that first answer, you thought up another Noble Lie. And when that one didn’t work, you invented another Noble Lie. OK, so you are a serial liar. Like I said, I’ve made my peace with that. It used to rankle me, but not any more.

I just accepted that you can’t be trusted and I moved on. I do have compassion for you, Dr. Jones. None of you guys set out to do the ugly things you ended up doing. You all got caught by Noble Cause Corruption, by the vision of being smarter than everyone else and of being the only people standing between us and global destruction. It’s heady, treacherous stuff.

wattsupwiththat.com...


The whole GW debate rests upon the integrity of a small cadre of scientists having a monopoly of the essential data - and from that trying to tease out entirely tenuous trends in climate behaviour, using flawed and biased computer models, being funded massively by vested political, financial and ideological interests.

The future of the planet and trillions of $ - are resting on these people!!? - WTF?

reply to post by mc_squared

So there are two sides to the FOI story:

- One is that the scientists were hiding, manipulating data - and thus evading requests for transparency on that information.

- The other is that the scientists were tired of being continuously harassed by a group of deniers, who only sought to manipulate and misrepresent their data against them (amongst the less-educated general public). There are indeed many cases of this exact thing happening, and I can show you numerous examples. But again - we can get to all that in due time.

Wouldn't a full, frank and complete response to the first FOI request render all others superfluous?

jw

if we used hemp for paper instead of trees we could reduce the carbon footprint of the logging industry big time. If we built homes with hempcrete instead of concrete, we'd have stronger, less contaminated (with mold) homes and live longer, healthier lives as a result. This plant also provides free medcine as a bonus to already great benefits such as a strong building material. It can make plastics, it can make biofuels, it can grow extremely fast and it's the only thing in existence currently which can guarantee independence from the system, FAST, to those who know how to make use of it properly. This plant wasn't banned because it is a drug. It was banned because mere seeds would empower the now serviles to live off of the government sponsored breast feeding.

And these stupid occutards occupy a city, concrete with no workability or potential. They are for the environment but also for inhabiting the lease natural of environments while they beg for more government, on a global scale. They beg for more tax even though history shows tax generally hits the poor and they pay for it. Never the rich.

Pot is so serious because it isn't just a drug, it is classified the highest because within a year you could build a home on some of their crown land and turn that land productive, you could save a bunch of energy and potentially be permanently off of their grid if you know what you are doing AND even still be reaping the benefits of technology. This is what the government is gearing up to protect you people from -- yourselves kicking these parasites to the curb for eternity. A handful of hemp seeds makes you tougher than nails again tyranny, and won't be long if you can grow it before you are well fed, well taken care of and completely dug in. alive to fight many other days. Hemp was key to victory in ww2. In fact one can argue that hemp probably won more than just 1 war. The government made you screw yourselves with their stupid suggestions. They can make the mistakes, not you.

I heard some figures on this hempcrete:
1/6th the weight of concrete (reduces the need for raw materials to build a structure with)
stronger than concrete
less quarrying,as aggregate is replaced with hemp
more natural, can sequester large amounts of carbon
breathable, anti-bacterial and anti-fungal
energy efficient (requires no insulation as it works like insulation)

mill some limestone into powder and grow some hemp, in 3 months you ought to have forms (which are optional, you don't actually need forms or rebar to build a half decent home) and hemp all grown, maybe 6 months if you are struggling to propogate a dozen seeds or something small like that. you'd have yourself all set up in less than half a year, with time to spare and do other things, and at the end of the year you would have enough to build an entire city (just needing limestone).

This is what the system is so afraid of. It'd be nice if people would wake up already and figure out that once these pricks are gone we can do this and live more functional and green lifestyles. 30 years to own a home is slavery, there is plenty of space for people if they do it right -- you've all been scammed.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

a little problem for you: how can you say there is nothing wrong with the emails when one of them says that the sun could account for ALL changes?

Because it doesn't say that, and far more importantly, actual scientific studies by many people which have looked at this very issue in deep quantitative detail for a long, long time make it clear that recent warming cannot be explained by changes in solar irradiance. Both have been measured with sufficient precision over decades.

Remember, global warming from greenhouse effect is a physics problem.

There is a specific physical causal mechanism which has been validated for decades. That is, of course there is a natural greenhouse effect from CO2 and other atmospheric components which is essential to explain even the pre-industrial temperature of the Earth. This is incontrovertible fact. Now, if you increase the number of such molecules you will get more of it, this is incontrovertible consequence of the laws of physics. The number of such molecules has increased, this is incontrovertible experimental fact. Furthermore other physical consequences of this fact, such as increased IR flux and decreased stratospheric temperatures have also been observed. It is therefore an incontrovertible fact that human activity has changed the climate, and increased greenhouse gases from human activities will change the climate more.

So, even if the Sun were doing something funky, which it is not, the effect from human changes to the atmosphere will still continue to contribute. The laws of physics never take a day, or even a microsecond, off.


( Note that even if the Sun's output were to decrease exactly (contrary to observations) to make the global average temperature stay the same when added to the increased greenhouse effect, there would still be substantial climate change, because the pattern of energy is different (Sun's effect is relatively larger in daytime and in tropical latitudes, greenhouse effect more at night and polar latitudes). This applies to geoengineering proposals---blocking summer Sun in the tropics from aerosols is not counteracting greenhouse warming cleanly)