Climate Change Today
[Guest post by DRJ]
Bradley J. Fikes looks at the global warming and climate change debate following the East Anglia email scandal: “Time To Clean Up Climate Science”.
And it’s a global warming extravaganza at Bradley’s home base, A Brief History, as Mike K decides (tongue-in-cheek): “Yes, global warming is man-made.”
There’s also a musical version.
Finally, from A Brief History’s Breaking News department: The East Anglia CRU has removed climate change data from its website. Plus this:
“If this is the best they can do to respond, they are toast:
The evil ‘fossil fuel industry’ is the villain.“
Meanwhile, world leaders say momentum is building for climate change.
— DRJ
I bet momentum is building. Among leaders who see that time is running out to seize incredible multi trillion dollar power and billion dollar wealth for politicians, momentum is building to seal the climate change deal now!
If they don’t, they never will. Their data is a lie, and they all know it. These hoaxers shared their nobel peace prize with Al Gore, the only american politician to go from upper middle class to nearly a billionaire. They know what they are doing, and they know their time is running out.
These people already claim to power to control CO2, granted by the USSC. Based in large part on these lies. Their cover to keep this up is running out, and they really don’t care too much about an economic system’s destruction, when it’s practically dead already.
The wealth this generates can be used to ensure political domination.
Dustin (cf255c) — 11/29/2009 @ 10:43 amDRJ,
That was Mike K., but thanks for mentioning our humble blog!
I wrote my own piece on A Brief History here.
And more recently, yesterday I posted a more comprehensive piece for my newspaper’s sci-tech blog you may wish to include in the post.
Again, thanks!
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/29/2009 @ 10:50 amThe LA Times is on the case, opposing nuclear power.
Nuclear energy is not a reasonable solution because plants take too long to build and cost far too much. Actually, it’s been so long since one has been built in this country that no engineering firm will even provide an estimate on the cost, but it’s safe to say that each new plant would run to several billion dollars. Because lenders aren’t willing to put up the money on such a risky investment, the nuclear industry is looking to Uncle Sugar. The last time there was a wave of nuclear construction in the United States, it took an average of nine years to build a plant, meaning we wouldn’t see the first one until at least 2018 — too late to play any significant role in meeting the Senate climate bill’s goal of cutting emissions 20% by 2020.
This is stupid in so many respects, it’s hard to know where to begin. Nuclear plants took years and billions because of nuclear Luddites who sued and protested and even broke into the plant sites.
France has been building plants all along and gets 85% of its electricity from them. What does the Times propose?
Geothermal !!!
In one of the most active earthquake zones in the US (A 3.1 yesterday in the LA area), the Times wants a big geothermal program. I suppose the earthquakes that result will be someone else’s problem.
Even environmentally friendly alternative technologies can have negative impacts which are difficult to predict. The citizens of Basel learned this first-hand as they were shaken by an earthquake of magnitude 3.4 on the Richter scale, followed by 60 lesser aftershocks, including a quake of magnitude 2.5 a week after the initial quake, and another tremor of 3.1 as recently as 6 January, attributed to changes as underground pressures at the now discontinued project site return to normal.
That complicated stuff is for people who took math in school; not journalists.
Mike K (addb13) — 11/29/2009 @ 10:51 amthank you for paying attention to this DRJ cause it’s a big deal
it’s scary what these people have done
happyfeet (0003d3) — 11/29/2009 @ 10:53 amInteresting isn’t it that just a day or two after putting all the data on the ‘net, they take it down?
Of course, the creaming they’re getting from geeks over their coding errors, on top of the fraudelent data, probably has nothing to do with it.
Climate researchers will, in the future, be ensconced into the same wing of infamy previously reserved for “Flim Flam Men” and “Snake Oil Salesmen”.
Just who do you believe, me or your lying eyes?
AD - RtR/OS! (27348e) — 11/29/2009 @ 10:56 amIndeed, Global Whoring makes for strange bedfellows.
ropelight (b7b321) — 11/29/2009 @ 10:58 amPolitical bedbugs that suck the blood out of people just struggling to survive.
AD - RtR/OS! (27348e) — 11/29/2009 @ 11:05 amI know no one cares about this anymore, but LGF is at its height of ridiculousness now. This global warming thing has really driven CJ to an even better level of parody. There’s absolutely no way he’s earnestly trying to be persuasive or even self-aware.
It’s an amazing shtick, and I applaud his dedication beyond all expectations.
Dustin (cf255c) — 11/29/2009 @ 11:06 amBradley,
It was your post I originally intended to link so thanks for bringing it to my attention. I’m adding it now.
DRJ (dee47d) — 11/29/2009 @ 11:08 amThis video gives a good run down of who’s, who in the fraud known as GoreBull warming or AGW for short.
ClimateGate Who’s Who
ML (f060a0) — 11/29/2009 @ 11:08 amO/T, but fm FoxNews….
“Nader Pondering Run for Senate”
Just what did Connecticut do to deserve such treatment?
AD - RtR/OS! (27348e) — 11/29/2009 @ 11:10 am@7 I’m astonished how CJ, an avowed pro-science computer programmer, shows no interest whatsoever in examining the data and code himself. He’s a faith-based science buff I guess. Now he’s bringing big oil and big tobacco into it; it’s an ad hominem dodge.
gp (d1217f) — 11/29/2009 @ 11:37 amThe Empire Strikes Back:
Stacy Feldman, SolveClimate, 11/25/09 has a Reuters article which was headlined this morning: Hacked Climate emails called a “Smear Campaign”
Now, however, the headline reads: Skeptics Exaggerating Science Scandal to Derail Copenhagen Climate Talks”
Feldman quotes CRU Vice-Chancellor of Research Trevor Davies in his official statement:
“There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation.”
She goes on to report that Michael Mann, co-author of the Copenhagen Diagnosis and lead author of the UN IPCC 3rd Assessment Report, “blamed skeptics for taking the personal emails out of context,” and of “cherry picking.”
Mann went on to say, “They’ve turned “something innocent into something nefarious….” The vital point being left out, he said, is that “regardless of how cherry-picked,” there is “absolutely nothing in any of the emails that calls into the question the deep level of consensus of climate change.”
Mann concluded that skeptics were engaged in a “smear campaign to distract the public…Those opposed to climate action, simply don’t have the science on their side.”
ropelight (b7b321) — 11/29/2009 @ 11:43 amIts pretty hilarious to see Mann accuse others of “cherry picking” given that its been well established that that’s what he and his collaborators did with proxy temp data.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/29/2009 @ 11:53 amThere is no “consensus” in science.
Gazzer (f4dafa) — 11/29/2009 @ 11:56 ammaybe they can have a consensus in jail
happyfeet (0003d3) — 11/29/2009 @ 12:01 pmI wanted to look up a few things at CRU myself. Here’s some fun: go to their website http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ and click on the link labeled “Search” in the lower left corner.
I wonder what CJ would say about that?
gp (d1217f) — 11/29/2009 @ 12:04 pmhf,
You and Mike K think alike:
DRJ (dee47d) — 11/29/2009 @ 12:04 pmWhat is with Mann’s ‘cherry picking’ accusation? In science, you’re supposed to cherry pick flaws in arguments. That’s how it’s done.
When you do that to criticize something, you’re doing it right. When you do it to prove something is absolutely beyond question, you’re doing it wrong!
These people are monsters, and when you consider the scope of their solutions… solutions that will actually kill people and ruin entire nations, and control industry, free transportation, even heating a home, it’s amazing that they refuse to even share all the data.
They destroyed the data, they collaborated to short circuit the peer review process. They lied and lied and even stole our money with grant lies. And now, when we have proof they have no integrity, that part is ‘cherry picking’ against a context of all the conclusions they have shouted for generations.
There are people living in Saudi Arabia. We are not going to go extinct if the entire planet goes up a few degrees. The climate changes all the time, and it’s not getting hotter right now. That’s ‘cherry picking’.
CJ’s contribution is just plain hate for those he doesn’t agree with, with zero interest in dialogue or anything but baseless mockery. That’s what it takes to think the global warming debate is absolutely proven in Al Gore’s favor.
Dustin (cf255c) — 11/29/2009 @ 12:15 pmChristopher Booker at The Telegraph has a good article on this subject.
DRJ (dee47d) — 11/29/2009 @ 12:49 pmOnce again, climate science is not experimental. You cannot do an experiment and even attempts to explain known events in the past does not work well and, in fact, may be the cause of all the “adjustments.” It is much more like social sciences and they are all ultimately reliant on appeals to authority. You cannot go over to the the lab and run an experiment to answer a question that comes up.
It is also, as Shannon Love points out over at Chicago Boyz, a very new field without much of a track record.
They were a setup for this sort of corruption once real money appeared. My old professor used to say there were more people living off cancer than dying from it. The same applied to AIDS. I’m not minimizing the plight of the victim but, if we wanted to save lives, why not spray for mosquitoes and dig wells ?
I once got into trouble for pointing this out when my professor complained about surgery residents being married, thereby diminishing the time they had for work. He, of course, is long gone so he does not have to see the work ethic of today’s residents. Anyway, after he went on one rant too many, I suggested my example of spraying mosquitoes rather than taking out fat women’s gallbladders.
I’m not sure he ever forgave me.
Mike K (addb13) — 11/29/2009 @ 12:55 pmDRJ, why do we have to read British newspapers to learn about US politics ? Maybe they like covering us because of our libel laws, which are much more journalist friendly.
Mike K (addb13) — 11/29/2009 @ 12:56 pmI don’t think Mr. Booker helps the cause by using a picture of what’s probably steam labeled “co2 emissions.” Carbon dioxide is your friend! It’s how we get Bolthouse Farms 100% Pure Carrot Juice which is very tasty except for sometimes it has botulism. This is one of those problems where irradiation would save lives I think.
happyfeet (0003d3) — 11/29/2009 @ 12:57 pmhf – I’m sure botulism has its supporters, too.
Mike K #22 – I thought the same thing after I read that article. Maybe American journalists will come full circle in another 20-30 years. By then, PC will be the status quo and they can show how edgy they are by being conservative.
DRJ (dee47d) — 11/29/2009 @ 1:04 pmcap and tax is dead. No zombie. Its unlikely reid will even bring it up for a vote. Democrats will hold the senate by the skin of their teeth. Trying to push cap and tax after these revelations (not to mention obamacare and the rest) would kill the democratic party for at least two election cycles. Obamas bluffing. He knows that any deal at copenhagen or pushing cap and tax = gop house and gop senate, not just gop house as it stands now. Hell the way things are going a gop-independent coalition could get a vetoproof control of the house.
chaos (7c068a) — 11/29/2009 @ 1:39 pmNot sure if Cap and Tax is dead (sure hope so), but with the disappearance of the raw data, there sure isn’t any science in the global warming crud. No data, no science, no deal. Wonder if and when Holdren goes under the bus.
Red County Pete (bcca52) — 11/29/2009 @ 1:52 pmThe lads at East Anglia won’t see the sunshine until someone drags them kicking and screaming into a British Court to defend their sorry a$$es for violating the FOI laws…anyone know what British law is on personal liability?
AD - RtR/OS! (27348e) — 11/29/2009 @ 2:29 pmNever mind Holdren, let’s get Steven Chu under that bus promptly – he’s been on board with this fiasco from the beginning.
Dmac (a964d5) — 11/29/2009 @ 2:32 pmI’m getting a kick out of how the usual suspects on the left appear to have been instructed not to discuss this topic, because after all, that would give it credibility.
If the White House dismissed it, everyone else should. What was that catch phrase the left was so fond of using during the Bush Administration (it arose when Kos’ buddy Armstrong had that conflict of interest and stock swindle problem) – starve the story of oxygen.
I can just see Rahm and Ax giving out their marching orders during the daily conference calls.
daleyrocks (718861) — 11/29/2009 @ 2:46 pmThe LA Times is on the case, opposing nuclear power.
Newspaper editorials are mostly off-the-top opining. There is rarely even a pretense at fact-checking, even at the biggest newspapers. (Caution: Daily Kos link; the main material is OK, just avoid the comments if you feel nauseous).
I personally think unsigned newspaper editorials are garbage. Editorials should be signed by the authors, or not published at all.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/29/2009 @ 5:08 pmAnd yet, they have not heard of France.
Maybe they oppose us emulating France on health care policy as well.
Michael Ejercito (6a1582) — 11/29/2009 @ 6:24 pmWHY NO HEARINGS ON “GLOBAL WARMING”?
Because they can’t get scientists to lie under oath. In fact,
most reputable scientists say the planet is getting cooler.
“Voodoo” science is being used as an excuse to impose draconian
legislation. The truth is: that 97% of CO2 emmissions — the
cause of so-called global warming — occur naturally; of the
final 3% America only contributes .6% — a negligible amount.
These globalist have a hidden agenda with their proposals, and it
is not to promote the public interest. It is an agenda to give
“big brother” more control over our lives, and a gradual
imposition of a regressive consumption tax. These monies will be
used to pay for further taxcuts for the rich, and to add to the
over 200 billion dollars — according to Ralph Nader — of
corporate Welfare benefits they illegally receive.
Also, the “multinationals” intend to use this farce as an excuse
to make our domestic producers less competitive. Through the Federal
Reserve (higher interest rates), and the administration’s strong
dollar policy (up from 83 to 143), they have begun their assault
on American industry, and the American people. Since the passage
of NAFTA and GATT our trade deficit has quadrupled, and is increasing
exponentially. People are now losing their jobs in droves.
In addition George Soros caused a run on the East Asian currencies.
Secret Squirrel (6a1582) — 11/29/2009 @ 6:28 pmNot only will this cost the American taxpayer 84 billion dollars
in the IMF billionaire bailout, but it will make it even cheaper
for the robber barons to purchase property, and produce their
products there. Remember the pesos devaluation after NAFTA was
signed?
AD at 11 – that is actually good news. This can not help but help the Republicans here in CT. If Nader runs a primary against Dodd both of them are hurt by the fighting. If Dodd wins he is weakened; if Nader wins the primary the Dems are finished, they could not get their candidate elected last time against someone they had defeated in the primary. Even CT residents are not crazy enough to put Nader in the Senate.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 11/29/2009 @ 10:37 pmIf he runs third party he just insures Dodd’s inevitable defeat by sucking of the craziest part of the base not to metion the funding which Dodd is having huge problems with already.
“So two Anthropogenic Global Warming scientists walk into a bar- No wait thats four. Four Anthropogenic Global Warming scientists walk into a bar and-“. No wait that won’t work either, (pulls out pencil , starts figuring on envelope) I got it! “Seven, seven Anthropogenic Global Warming scientists walk into a bar …”
Have Blue (854a6e) — 11/29/2009 @ 11:07 pm[…] lists of pertinent articles, on blogs, online news sites, etc; go here, here, here and […]
Climaquiddick! « Letters from Glome (bd1ac8) — 11/30/2009 @ 7:10 am