|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 27, 2009 22:18:09 GMT
Over at RealClimate, they have: Climate scientists are being subjected to slanderous attacks by demagogues in high office and the global warming disinformation campaign. Climate Science Watch is posting here an “Open letter to the climate science community” by Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Santer says: “We are now faced with powerful ‘forces of unreason’—forces that (at least to date) have been unsuccessful in challenging scientific findings of a warming Earth, and a ‘discernible human influence’ on global climate. These forces of unreason are now shifting the focus of their attention to the scientists themselves. They seek to discredit, to skew the truth, to misrepresent. They seek to destroy scientific careers rather than to improve our understanding of the nature and causes of climate change.” Dr. Santer doesn't say whether or not he'll "beat the crap" out of you if you disagree with him. Correct me if I am wrong - but isn't 'RealClimate' the site run by team captain Michael Mann? Not exactly credible then.
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on Dec 27, 2009 22:24:39 GMT
Over at RealClimate, they have: Climate scientists are being subjected to slanderous attacks by demagogues in high office and the global warming disinformation campaign. Climate Science Watch is posting here an “Open letter to the climate science community” by Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Santer says: “We are now faced with powerful ‘forces of unreason’—forces that (at least to date) have been unsuccessful in challenging scientific findings of a warming Earth, and a ‘discernible human influence’ on global climate. These forces of unreason are now shifting the focus of their attention to the scientists themselves. They seek to discredit, to skew the truth, to misrepresent. They seek to destroy scientific careers rather than to improve our understanding of the nature and causes of climate change.” Dr. Santer doesn't say whether or not he'll "beat the crap" out of you if you disagree with him. Correct me if I am wrong - but isn't 'RealClimate' the site run by team captain Michael Mann? Not exactly credible then. You are correct; it's the Team Blogsite. Note, I have modified the original post.
|
|
|
Post by sentient on Dec 28, 2009 13:25:35 GMT
This one is worth listening to. You have to wait for a 45 second advert before Clive James delivers an interesting opinion on the CRU and the global warming "swamp the press" mantra. www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00p6vlnLooks like the censors are not quite as diligent on BBC radio......
|
|
|
Post by sentient on Dec 28, 2009 13:49:49 GMT
On RealClimate. For years many of us wondered what was really going on over at RealClimate. When the subject would be paleoclimatology, I would often see something which significantly diverged from the fossil climate world and comment on it. Oddly, these never appeared in the comments section. The same thing would happen over at environment360. In fact it happened this weekend over there, again.
It seemed that RC was providing a very staunch pro-alarmist podium, so staunch in fact, that no discussion was being allowed save that which supported the purported viewpoints.
And then we learn that none other than billionaire George Soros was involved in the financing of the site. George managed to wrangle quite a few billion out of Obama recently to support offshore drilling for oil in Brazil. A bit weird that, the US financing a staunch warmist in the search for offshore oil in South America while we resist it in North America.
Then came Climategate, and we see with the clarity of eyes behind the scenes that they really were "using" RC strictly as a mouthpiece, with Mann and Gavin Schmidt as overlords. The only real surprise here was the unveiling of why, most of us already knew what they were doing.
RC, in fact, serves a useful purpose to this day. It provides useful insight into how seemingly one-sided "scientists" actually can consider the other side of certain matters. By adopting the time-honored tradition of throwing mud against the wall and seeing what sticks. It warms the human heart to see such startlingly pretzel logic from the defamed as they desperately try to shout down, once again, a revealed truth. This time, their own reputations, such as they are.
Now, we are advised to "cherry-pick" for ourselves the parts of their "science" that may be alright. More or less, what fits our own criteria of whatever may be extractable from so much mud. Much like the throngs that today still solicit the financial advice of one Bernie Madoff.
|
|
|
Post by sentient on Dec 29, 2009 18:21:32 GMT
This just in:
December 29, 2009
Chinese Hackers May Have Leaked ‘Climategate’ E-mails
The hacking of computers containing climate change-related e-mails may have come from China, in the hopes of scuttling the Copenhagen climate talks, suggests an article from the Daily Mail.
The hack-job that came to be called “Climategate” initially had been attributed to Russia, which in addition to China had little to gain from a successful Copenhagen.
However, the Russian security service released information that allowed the original e-mail traffic to be retraced. According to the article, the e-mails went through a computer company in Siberia, but originated from a computer in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
An open-access server run by Malaysian telecom firm Telekom Malaysia Berhad, which supplies internet access to nearby China, was the source of the e-mail leak.
Because the open server does not require a password, the company said that it could not identify the sender. That has not stopped speculation that China was behind the leaked e-mails.
The IP address used to post the messages is linked to one used by a Chinese environmental institute, the Research Institute of Forest Ecology and Environment Protection, reports the Daily Mail.
Several professors from that institute have shared a platform with the University of East Anglia experts whose e-mails were hacked, according to the Daily Mail.
Many countries and analysts blame China for blocking the adoption of a climate change treaty in Copenhagen in December. The Copenhagen meeting resulted in a non-binding agreement with specifics to be determined in 2010, which angered the poorest nations and some Western groups who wanted an ambitious commitment.
One journalist wrote that China blocked the open negotiations for two weeks and then made sure that the “closed-door deal” made it look like the West failed to help the world’s poor again.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 29, 2009 18:52:15 GMT
China is no dummy when it comes to world politics. They recognize that war is too expensive, and have relied on economics for 100's of years to overcome an adversary.
It would seem they have played this very well, if in fact, this is true.
Also, they do not want to see the US crippled quit yet as they are still taking wealth out. When the US becomes poor enough to not matter, which it is doing in a very hurried manner, then China will not care as it is the dominant country in the world.
|
|
|
Post by sentient on Dec 29, 2009 22:47:05 GMT
Well said.
|
|
|
Post by boxman on Jan 4, 2010 23:12:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Jan 5, 2010 0:15:49 GMT
The graphs they showed from Lapland, and Russia showed the 1930s being warmer than the 1990s. I found that interesting because some on this site have told us that the 1930s were warmer than the 1990s only in North America. That doesn't seem to be the case per the data they presented.
|
|
|
Post by boxman on Jan 5, 2010 0:26:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 5, 2010 0:33:42 GMT
The graphs they showed from Lapland, and Russia showed the 1930s being warmer than the 1990s. I found that interesting because some on this site have told us that the 1930s were warmer than the 1990s only in North America. That doesn't seem to be the case per the data they presented. OK......AJ please don't get upset......but something is reallllllly starting to stink in Copenhagen. The Fins seem to be quit on top of things.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 5, 2010 0:55:59 GMT
The graphs they showed from Lapland, and Russia showed the 1930s being warmer than the 1990s. I found that interesting because some on this site have told us that the 1930s were warmer than the 1990s only in North America. That doesn't seem to be the case per the data they presented. Shhh you'll upset Steve and glc
|
|
|
Post by stranger on Jan 5, 2010 2:19:56 GMT
I got a nice chuckle from the Telegraph this morning. blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100021135/climategate-michael-manns-very-unhappy-new-year/James Delingpole reports: "As I said yesterday, one of our jobs this year is to wipe the complacent smiles off the smug faces of the lobbyists, “experts”, “scientists”, politicians and activists pushing AGW." "This is why I am so glad to report that Michael Mann – creator of the incredible Hockey Stick curve and one of the scientists most heavily implicated in the Climategate scandal – is about to get a very nasty shock. When he turns up to work on Monday, he’ll find that all 27 of his colleagues at the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University have received a rather tempting email inviting them to blow the whistle on anyone they know who may have been fraudulently misusing federal grant funds for climate research." If Delingpole is correct, there's up to fifty million USD waiting just waiting for the right man singing the right song. And the Email makes it a mighty tempting proposition for a budding head hunter. Stranger
|
|
|
Post by geosul on Jan 5, 2010 4:41:18 GMT
Fear not. The "IPCC is conducting its own review into the stolen emails"
I think they are checking the spelling and punctuation.
Geosul
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jan 7, 2010 16:12:18 GMT
|
|