IMG_2361
Blog powered by Typepad

« Book review and excerpt: Guided By Spirit | Main | Two 19th century NDEs »

Comments

UH...ok That’s awesome Michael, however I thought most of you right-wing nuts shied away from Hippy new age mysticism??? What the heck?

I read a recent article, can't refind it, that astronomers are predicting an absence of sun spots for the next few years that could slow down the warming. It stated that when sun spot levels dropped about six years ago that warming continued which pointed to a man made cause, but with the absence of all sun spots for an undetermined time (the last time this happened was in the late 1600's-early 1700's for 70 years and led to the little ice age) it could buy us some time to switch over to alternate fuel sources.
I'm a lot like you. I can see some of the results of climate change so it can't be denied, but haven't fully swallowed the sky is falling party line.

"I thought most of you right-wing nuts shied away from Hippy new age mysticism???"

I'm the exception that tests the rule!

:-)

The last time something like this happened we were knee deep in sand looking for WMDs.

Should I now begin treating all science as political science?

Well for what its worth you have the best right-wing blog out there!... er at least its the only RW wing blog I read...
But it’s still good!

On another note
I read somewhere that we should be seeing some preliminary results from Parnia’s AWARE study by now?? Have you heard anything?
OH Man, I am dying to know!(pun intended)

Global warming is the new religion over here. The sacrament of recycling is practiced zealously...and woe betide you if you don't separate your cardboard from your plastic.

Looks of disgust and contempt from your religiously green neighbours will be the least of it. The 'green police' from the local council will be down on you like a ton of recycled bricks. It's now a bigger offence to put your recycled items into the wrong container than it is to shoplift.. and I'm not kidding.
Barking mad Britain.

By the way, there's a tangential parapsychology connection to this story. Some of the emails indicate that the pro-AGW scientists were abusing the peer review process to keep anti-AGW articles out of the major journals, and were also applying pressure on journal editors not to publish any articles that didn't tow the pro-AGW line. This was all happening behind the scenes, of course. At the same time, in public, the pro-AGW scientists were saying their critics couldn't be taken seriously because - wait for it - they weren't being published in peer-reviewed journals!

Catch-22, the best there is.

The parapsychology connection? For decades the same tactic has been used against parapsychologists. "Mainstream" journals typically refuse to publish (or even to look at) parapsychologists' reports; "mainstream" scientists then say if there was anything to parapsychology, the reports would be appearing in the journals!

I do get concerned that denial in climate change equates to status quo on energy consumption.

While I agree that there is not sufficient evidence (yet) to conclude that human activity is causing global warming, we should still support any activism that promotes energy independence, renewable/alternative energy.

Humans will change when we run out of oil, coal, and other carbon based fuels. As to when that will be? Who knows?

"The sacrament of recycling is practiced zealously...and woe betide you if you don't separate your cardboard from your plastic."

So your recommendation is...? Landfill?
Or the sea where in ends up in the Pacific Ocean?

For years now, people like Steve McIntire have been claiming that the warmists are fudging the data and modeling programs, stacking the peer review process, and manufacturing the results demanded by warming faith.

These emails prove everything that McIntire and the other critics of the AGW juggernaut have been saying is exactly correct.

Copenhagen is dead now.

"For decades the same tactic has been used against parapsychologists. 'Mainstream' journals typically refuse to publish (or even to look at) parapsychologists' reports; 'mainstream' scientists then say if there was anything to parapsychology, the reports would be appearing in the journals!"

Great point.

Regarding warming itself, even Richard Lindzen, a leading AGW critic for years, agreed the data shows global warming. The disagreement has been over the role of humans in it.

For my part, whether humans are involved some, a lot, or none at all makes no difference. While there is, it seems clear, a religious element to enviro-izing the culture of the planet, that sort of bizarre religious extremism is far from what I and so many others try to practice: Conservative practices of existing on the Earth, trying not to waste or be gluttonous of anything. Respecting the planet and its life as goods in themselves to be enjoyed where possible and avoided when necessary, conserving with an eye towards the future, not creating problems for the future that our children will live in, not being absorbed with what we want and have to have here and now, not having terrible stewardship practices—in short, just not living like you have your head up your ass and it's all about you.

I can't tell you how annoyed I get by city folk who want to live out in the country, near the wilderness, and who then indignantly complain that bears and cougars and raccoons and other furry dangerous non city critters show up on "their" property. Seriously? What did they think? Did they think all wildlife was either stuffed in the museum or sitting behind bars in the zoos? Does the city make you that stupid?

And we don't have to wait for the planet to send us dire warning signs to live like that, do we? And if it doesn't, that doesn't mean we have a free pass to be environmental jerks, does it?

That garbage patch in the ocean Barbara is talking about is an obscenity, and it has nothing to do with whether humans are causing the Earth to warm. It has everything to do with human beings being trained and expected to act like machines in a machine culture.

While the earth did warm until 1998 or so, it hasn't since, and in fact has shown evidence of a slight decline.

And, of course, it was a lot warmer still during the medieval warm period. The climate changes -- and always has, long before human beings showed up.

Something that doesn't seem to have been picked up on is the academic address from whence these files were hacked. Was it MIT? Cambridge? The Max Planck Institute, perhaps? No it was UEA aka the University of Easy Access, which has never, as far as records show, ever produced any ground breaking science and is now apparently the source of gospel truth on climate science and is providing the idealogical impetus for a new world government. This episode has highlighted the ultra low grade quality of the academics behind the AGW racket - real scientists aren't involved in "climate science" which can't even accurately predict weather conditions over the next 12 hours.

Barbara, I like you. Your a feisty lady ! :)

I'm not recommending chucking anything in the sea. Or burying it. Or burning it. The fact is I don't know what should be done about this problem.
However, I don't believe it's fair to give me a fine if I accidentally put 'items' in the wrong recycling box. Currently, most of the separated material is all thrown into landfill anyway because it's value is so miniscule.

Maybe we need to stop making plastic products. Hang on a minute...what's this keyboard made out of. No, forget that.

From what I've seen, the only thing those emails show is the normal "prettying up of presentation" you get everywhere something is presented. If you a few hundred thousands of emails, there will be a certain number of ominous sounding ones in between - that's just statistics. I'm also sure that there is some fraud among GW scientists, as in any human endeavor. However, I think that the belief in the "grand conspiracy" many US conservatives indulge in is just silly.
Consider this - one thing that is without doubt is that humans are changing the composition of the atmosphere measurably. That's called TERRAFORMING. To assume that changing the composition of the atmosphere does not have SOME effect on the climate is naive, in my view.

By the way - I wanted to thank you for your post on Hickman and Ayn Rand. It really shut up some of the Randroids on the board I hang out at.

"the only thing those emails show is the normal 'prettying up of presentation'"

No, it is much, much worse than that. Even George Monbiot, a stridently pro-AGW columnist, recognizes this:

"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. 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, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.

"Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 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."

http://snipurl.com/tf4v6

The real key is not the emails but the code, which shows that the computer models consistently did not work and had to be manually tweaked to produce the desired results. The data were not just "prettied up," but mauled and mangled to behave as the models predicted.

No wonder the AGW scientists fiercely fought FOIA requests. They couldn't reveal their raw data, because those data would show that the models were wrong. They had to hide (and possibly even destroy) the data so that their manipulation would not become obvious. That's not science. It's propaganda.

Inasmuch as destroying information requested under FOIA is a crime, it is possible there will be criminal penalties against some of these individuals. Which means it is not only a conspiracy, but quite possibly a criminal conspiracy. Just some guys blowing off steam in emails? No, it's orders of magnitude more serious than that.

The "terraforming" argument is a red herring, IMO. That human activity has "some" effect on the climate is a truism denied by nobody. The issue is whether the effects are gravely serious, mildly significant, or relatively insignificant. The AGW camp claimed its data proved that the effects were gravely serious. Now we know that much of their data is worthless. That means it's back to square one on the whole issue.

I've been reading about this nearly everywhere I go. I'm a bit dismayed that it hasn't gone more mainstream but not all that surprised.

The spin this has produced has been nothing short of incredible. People have even been using this as an example to further worship 'science' since this proves that its still 'self-correcting'.

Only it took a hacker instead of other scientists to get it headed back on track.

Politics with more numbers and graphs.

I dunno. Unless they are photoshopped, the photos tell a more persuasive story than hacked emails do.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Glacier_Gallery

"I'm not recommending chucking anything in the sea. Or burying it. Or burning it. The fact is I don't know what should be done about this problem." sw

It sounds like you want to store plastics like nuclear waste. It's actually sensible to burn them in Integra-style incinerators (which produce no dioxins) and simultaneously provide electricity for the local city. There's one near you in Portsmouth. (Burn plastic not coal).

dmduncan,

Some glaciers are shrinking, others are growing.

Also, it was warmer 1000 years ago than it is today. The climate is always changing. . .

Matthew:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm

Also, a response on the same site to the hacked emails issue whose end argument, strangely, would be fitting on this blog regarding skepticism of the paranormal kind:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-do-the-hacked-CRU-emails-tell-us.html

duncan,

I'm not interested in reading a "response" to the emails and code. "response" = spin. Much more interesting to actually read the emails and look at the code.

re: glaciers -- If you look at real data sets (ie climate in Greenland and England) instead of the tree ring data that the Harry Read Me file shows is completely fraudulent, it is clear that the medieval warm period was likely hotter than today. That means that warming and cooling cycles are natural, so we don't have any idea that the recent warming is related to CO2 levels or just a natural variation.

In any event the CRU mole has showed us conclusively that CRU is a political advocacy organization that is only interested in the "right" results from climate science, hence any science that came out of that institution is completely discardable (in the same way we can completely ignore what doctors in the employ of tobacco manufacturers have to say about smoking and lung cancer). This week we are seeing that the New Zealand temperature record was fraudulently "adjusted" to show warming where the raw measurements showed none at all. Funny how all the "adjustments" are always made to increase the warming over time, and not the other way, eh?

Hoped you would find the attached link of interest.
It is a very brief, condensed documentary on one of the top ten percent of credible reincarnation cases.
Hope you find it worthy of your time.
Thanks for all you do.

Love & Peace,
Michelle Moshay

Reincarnation Case of Artist Paul & Mette Gauguin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2CE3d0a0v8

Matthew:

First, I'm not disputing that climate change is natural and always occurring, nor am I blaming humanity as the cause. To be blunt about it: I don't care. If we are doing it, we will reap what we sow and we will have to live with it, regardless of fearmongering political attempts to herd all of us into the same line to behave as ordered.

Whatever is coming and why — bring it on. That's my position.

"I'm not interested in reading a "response" to the emails and code. "response" = spin. Much more interesting to actually read the emails and look at the code."

Why would you not want to read it? ALWAYS read what the other side is saying.

I'm assuming no one will challenge the photos as photoshopped. If that's the case, the photos do not lie and it seems clear that the glaciers are in retreat despite the few exceptions. And the link I provided relies on glaciers observed since 1946 by the World Glacier Monitoring Service, not tree ring data.

What I find bizarre is that on this blog we criticize science for nitpicking details here and there about paranormal evidence while ignoring the evidence of the big picture; whereas with global warming the process is completely reversed: Scientists are criticizing skeptics for ignoring the big picture, and skeptics are nitpicking at the details. It's weird to see.

Also, the implication here is that since these guys lied and deceived, it's ALL bunk. Where have we heard that before? Well, by skeptics each time they show this medium or that one to have engaged in fraud. So why are we so flexible to still accept mediums, yet inflexible to still accept global warming? Why does this instantly discredit all the various pieces of global warming evidence that make up the big picture?

Fair question?

I don't care what the data shows or who fudged what for what reasons. If those glaciers are typical, rather than the exception, of what is happening to glaciers across the world, it's because things are heating up. So pictures say more to me than data you can cheat with does. I believe me eyes. Not so much what others are putting into my ears.

Anyway, you should read the link. Nobody should be absolutely convinced of anything so uncertain.

'It sounds like you want to store plastics like
nuclear waste' - Barbara

I don't think I inferred that, did I ? I just want to to be able to purchase milk in a container and dispose of it satisfactorily. I don't have room for a cow in the garden.

Now to these incinerators. Portsmouth, unfortunately is not 'near' at all, but even if it was, once I've sorted out my recycling the best I can and put it out onto the street, it's up to the council what they want to do with it. I never asked to have milk or butter decanted into plastic bottles/containers in the first place, I was happy with glass bottles and foil wrappers.
I assume in the USA you still get your groceries packed into a brown paper bag. I always liked that when I was over there. We should use those here instead of the indestructible plastic bags that we favour, commonly ending up tangled in trees and hedgerows and referred to as witches' knickers.

dm duncan.
Some good points there, as always. Couldn't, the glaciers, however have melted to the same extent a thousand years ago. We don't know that they didn't...and then reform and so on ?

dmduncan, I think it's clear that some warming has occurred. And I don't think the CRU debacle discredits all AGW research or shows that all AGW scientists are frauds. It does, however, call into question the validity of the computer models that predict future warming; and those models are the basis for the proposed changes in industrial policy.

We do know that ice sheets have retreated before, and then advanced again. See this article on the Little Ice Age:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Read the section titled "Effects on the Northern hemisphere" for a good description of life in Europe during the LIA. Although there are potential hazards associated with a warming trend, people forget that a severe cooling trend poses even greater risks.

Just because the glaciers are retreating does not mean the earth is getting warmer year after year.
Suppose it is true that Montana and all of Canada was under ice in the not distant past (as we are told is true). The earth is probably warmer now than it was then, but the warming could have occurred sometime ago and it would take a long time for the ice to melt.
In fact, the earth could be cooling in the recent past and the ice would continue to melt—can you imagine such a case?

I was glad these emails got released, but I wasn't surprised by the contents at all. I've known for a while that anthropogenic global warming was a scam concocted as a way to make money from a 'global carbon tax' and control people's energy usage. I've been following the topic on one of my blogs and wrote about it in a chapter for a book I wrote about corruption and conspiracy theories.

The whole anthropogenic global warming scare reminds me of the dihydrogen monoxide scare.

The comments to this entry are closed.