Posted by
rycK on Tuesday, December 01, 2009 7:32:51 AM
Global Warming
Debates, Conduct of Scientists and Some Pointed Questions:
Abstract: “Scientists’ have performed
poorly in their core duties and have collected in little political claques that
appear to exist to deflect criticism and have also suppressed or erased data,
but have strangely retained the respect of the UN who dearly want to get some
money from Cap and Trade fees and care not a whit if the science is real or
phony. It is strange that much of this ‘science’ seems to coincide with Al
Gore’s business adventures in Cap and Trade. Critics
of Global Warming—now downgraded to ‘Climate Change’ as the errant computer
models ungraciously gave the wrong signal, have been marginalized, abused and
their papers rejected. The damming e-mails,
presumable protected by law under FOIA legislation in two countries have been diligently
deleted. The raw data, presumably free of political massages of various sorts
have been deleted
and are expediently absent for subsequent analysis. If you put money on the
drum some ‘scientists’ will dance to any tune you select.
We open
this essay with a statement of faith that properly ranks with palm readers,
bingo addicts and certain Methodists. Apparently, the IPCC has ‘settled’ the
matter of Global Warming at least in their minds.
“"I don't think that's anything that is, quite
frankly, among most people, in dispute anymore," he said during Monday's
press briefing.”--
Gibbs: Despite research
dispute, 'climate change is happening' By Tony Romm Whitehouse 1 Dec 2009.
This must
give us all complete confidence. But, there is more:
True Belief:
“There is "virtually no
possibility" of a few scientists biasing the advice given to governments
by the UN's top global warming body, its chair said today.”--
Leaked emails won't harm UN climate body, says chairman Rajendra Pachauri
Translated,
the means that if the projections are phony [or no]t we still accept the findings and want the money. Are
we, or not, involved in some anthropogenic contamination of our planet that
leads to global warming? Perhaps it does not matter to the UN and other
parasites. We can at least wonder about some of the ‘science’ in this matter [even
thought it is ‘happening’] because of the following questions points, comments
and more:
[1] The matter has been deemed ‘settled
by some politician [Al Gore]
who is corrupt and has solicited or accepted bribes
in the past and is considered a ‘climate pirate.’
Suppression of evidence:
“Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not
in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get
him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do
likewise.”
"I can't see either … being in the next
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"—Phil Jones
[2] Critics of GW have been
smeared
and their work ignored and papers canned by ‘peer review’ committees who filter
the negative evidence.
“This was the danger of always criticising
the skeptics for
not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they
found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I
think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal.
Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to
no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to
consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who
currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”
This is science?
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them
I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”
It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one
for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by
Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this,
but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”
Why not
silence the opposition so we can say that we are unanimous!
[3] The computer models and such
have been ‘predicting’ that that the earth’s temperature is increasing and now,
against their political wishes, the earth has treacherously defied political
correctness and she lowers her temperature.
“Opponents of the
Waxman-Markey “cap and trade” bill would do well to invoke recent scientific
studies that show global surface temperatures have not increased since 1998, contrary to what climate models have predicted.”-- Scientific evidence now points to global cooling, contrary to U.N. alarmism By: Kevin Mooney
[4] Data has been deliberately
erased and only the massaged versions apparently remain.
The
original data set has been deleted.
[5] Those at East Anglia have chosen to delete e-mails and other data and communication in
defiance of England’s FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] and encouraged others to do so.
This is
probably a felony.
These are
the kind of people we have in our government and world ‘government’ as the UN
is sometimes alluded to in public and in
‘science’ where they spend billions of dollars that are apparently politically
oriented. Even ardent supporters like George Monbiot at the Guardian have
called for his resignation.
This is a
disgrace and yet they still have a chance to divert a trillion dollars worth of
taxes into the hands of many people probably for nothing.
rycK
Comments:
ryckki@gmail.com
Scientific evidence now points to global cooling,
contrary to U.N. alarmism By: KEVIN MOONEY Commentary Staff Writer