Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I'm sorry, I don't know who you are, but its not everyday I accidentally offend the mentally handicapped. So can you please just butt out of this conversation for a minute?
what gives you the idea T is mentally handicapped?
The part where he implied scientists were in it for the money. As a starving physics graduate student in my lower 30's making 20k a year - I know that proposition is retarded.
'Climategate' professor Phil Jones awarded £13 million in research grants
The professor at the centre of the 'Climategate' affair has successfully received more than £13 million in research funding.
By Robert Mendick
Published: 8:15PM GMT 05 Dec 2009
Prof Jones has stood aside as head of the CRU while an independent inquiry investigates thousands of emails and other documents stolen from the university's computer server and published on the internet
The figure is disclosed in a leaked, internal document posted on the internet by climate change sceptics who have seized upon it as evidence of a funding "gravy train" for scientists conducting research into the area....
Climategate: Follow the Money
Climate change researchers must believe in the reality of global warming just as a priest must believe in the existence of God.
By BRET STEPHENS
Last year, ExxonMobil donated $7 million to a grab-bag of public policy institutes, including the Aspen Institute, the Asia Society and Transparency International. It also gave a combined $125,000 to the Heritage Institute and the National Center for Policy Analysis, two conservative think tanks that have offered dissenting views on what until recently was calledwithout ironythe climate change "consensus."
To read some of the press accounts of these giftsamounting to about 0.00027% of Exxon's 2008 profits of $45 billionyou might think you'd hit upon the scandal of the age. But thanks to what now goes by the name of climategate, it turns out the real scandal lies elsewhere.
Climategate, as readers of these pages know, concerns some of the world's leading climate scientists working in tandem to block freedom of information requests, blackball dissenting scientists, manipulate the peer-review process, and obscure, destroy or massage inconvenient temperature datafacts that were laid bare by last week's disclosure of thousands of emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, or CRU.
But the deeper question is why the scientists behaved this way to begin with, especially since the science behind man-made global warming is said to be firmly settled. To answer the question, it helps to turn the alarmists' follow-the-money methods right back at them....
February 05, 2010
Climategate: Is It Criminal?
By Dexter Wright
The potential criminality of the Climategate scandal is exactly the issue that is being investigated by authorities in Britain. The British Parliament has convened hearings to investigate East Anglia University and the Climate Research Unit to uncover unethical and illegal activities. As more information is revealed, the whole Climategate affair begins to take on the makings of a good mystery novel. Like any good mystery or crime plot, the web of involvement is widespread....
...A new thread in this web has appeared recently concerning a separate investigation conducted by the European Law Enforcement Organization Cooperation (aka Europol). Investigators have found evidence of a complex carbon-trading scam on the European Climate Exchange. Just three short weeks ago, three British subjects were arrested in an apparent scam worth billions of dollars. Much of the criminal activity alleged involves tax evasion.
Trading on the European Climate Exchange is open to the world market, but the carbon credits only involve the European Union (EU) nations giving brokers the ability to hide trading activities in other countries and avoid paying taxes. This is known as a Carousel Fraud. Curiously, this thread of tax avoidance is also spun into the tangled web of e-mails from East Anglia University. In one of the e-mails dated 6 March 1996, two members of the Jones Gang, Stepan Shiyatov and Dr. Kieth Briffa, discuss how to avoid paying taxes in Russia:
Also, it is important for us if you can transfer the ADVANCE money on the personal accounts which we gave you earlier and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day) will not be more than 10,000 USD. Only in this case we can avoid big taxes and use money for our work as much as possible.
This is not an isolated e-mail concerning money. On 7 October 1997, Andrew Kerr of the World Wild Life Fund (WWF) sent an e-mail to essentially the entire global network of the Jones Gang expressing grave concerns that Kyoto would be a "flop" and fretted about the possible economic impact it might have:
It would also be very useful if progressive business groups would express their horror at the new economic opportunities which will be foregone if Kyoto is a flop.
Best wishes, Andrew
The question is, why would the WWF be interested in "new economic opportunities" if the Kyoto Accord were to fail? Aren't they supposed to save panda bears? As they say in Washington, "follow the money." One of the major benefactors of the WWF is the global banking giant HSBC Holdings plc. HSBC is a major trader on the European Climate Exchange. The public stance on climate was voiced by Stephen Green, a Group Chairman at HSBC:
...
Best cast an eye toward the nearest steep cliffs, to try and keep the true believers from attempting to leap to their deaths.
Don't bother responding suckAMaN you made my ignore list a long time ago, welcome to the few, the proud, the assholes who opinions don't count.
is said to be "firmly settled" by whom? What is their name(s)? Please direct me to that quote.especially since the science behind man-made global warming is said to be firmly settled
American Thinker: Climategate: Is It Criminal?
The New York Times is reporting that the IPCC chairman, Rajendra K. Pachauri is still "greatly admired" in the scientific community despite the IPCC 2007 report being riddled with errors. The article explains away Pachauri's conflicted interests, saying that his expertise is worth the risk. It goes on to paint him as a middle class citizen, brushing off that he recently earned $16,000 in interest on his bank account in India. To earn $16,000 in interest at a three percent interest rate, Pachuari would have almost $533,000 sitting in his bank account, and for two percent, it bumps the amout to $800,000.
Wow. Science cost money. Therefore it must be wrong.
is said to be "firmly settled" by whom? What is their name(s)? Please direct me to that quote.especially since the science behind man-made global warming is said to be firmly settled
American Thinker: Climategate: Is It Criminal?
When you wanna talk about science let me know.
Wow. Science cost money. Therefore it must be wrong.
is said to be "firmly settled" by whom? What is their name(s)? Please direct me to that quote.
American Thinker: Climategate: Is It Criminal?
When you wanna talk about science let me know.
Old Rocks for one has used the term 'settled science' more than a time or two. I guess you are claiming you never have? Sorry to have gotten you all excited.
When you're ready to talk about science let me knowNo money in the gullible warming scam?...Yeah, right.
The New York Times is reporting that the IPCC chairman, Rajendra K. Pachauri is still "greatly admired" in the scientific community despite the IPCC 2007 report being riddled with errors. The article explains away Pachauri's conflicted interests, saying that his expertise is worth the risk. It goes on to paint him as a middle class citizen, brushing off that he recently earned $16,000 in interest on his bank account in India. To earn $16,000 in interest at a three percent interest rate, Pachuari would have almost $533,000 sitting in his bank account, and for two percent, it bumps the amout to $800,000.
Where did Pachuari get the money?
Old Rocks for one has used the term 'settled science'
When the IPCC, CRU, UCAR, NCAR, Penn State, NASA, NOAA, et.al. are ready to release scientifically valid "work", let me know.
I'm sorry, I don't know who you are, but its not everyday I accidentally offend the mentally handicapped. So can you please just butt out of this conversation for a minute?
what gives you the idea T is mentally handicapped?
The part where he implied scientists were in it for the money. As a starving physics graduate student in my lower 30's making 20k a year - I know that proposition is retarded.
When the IPCC, CRU, UCAR, NCAR, Penn State, NASA, NOAA, et.al. are ready to release scientifically valid "work", let me know.
All those groups have numerous peer reviewed publications in numerous different journals.
You really are just plain dumb, aren't you?
~Phil Jones, CRUKevin and I will keep them (skeptical research papers) out (of the IPCC) somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !”
what gives you the idea T is mentally handicapped?
The part where he implied scientists were in it for the money. As a starving physics graduate student in my lower 30's making 20k a year - I know that proposition is retarded.
The biggest mistake I ever made in my life was not attending Bronx Science when offered the opportunity and continuing to get a degree in archaeology because people convinced me I'd never make any money at it.
First, as long as your happy, who the fuck cares how much money you make? And more importantly, I know for a fact that given my instincts and unique view I would have discovered some long lost civilization or at least written a good sequel to the Indiana Jones franchise.
...Its truly a puzzle. This is a story that affects the future of human civilization, if some of the believers are right. It ties financially to people right up to the top of American politics, as well as major industries throughout the U.S. and the world. Whats more, the story would seem to be all wrapped up, ready for aggressive investigative reporters with the resources of the Times to expose. Some of the perpetrators have even begun to confess. Why wouldnt the Times cover it at all?
Are there any mentions of Professor Phil Jones admission [9] in a BBC interview that he isnt good at keeping records, that his notes were so disorganized that he couldnt comply with the Freedom of information requests, that there had indeed been no statistically significant warming since 1995 and that there was still significant uncertainty about the Medieval Warm Period, and even about climate science in general?
Thanks to Gerard Vanderleun of the American Digest blog [10] and his link to Tom Nelson [11], one of my new favorite climate aggregators we might have an answer. Nelson ran into this audio recording [12] (warning: 105MB mp3 file) of the first Shorenstein Center/Belfer Center seminar on news coverage of climate change. One of the speakers was Andrew Revkin of the New York Times. Heres part of what Revkin had to say, transcribed by Tom Nelson [13]:
One thing thats interesting to note in this administration shift is that all the coverage that I did of all those obfuscations, editing, censorship and stuff that the Bush administration got involved in was a no-brainer getting that on the front page of the New York Times Now, theoretically, should I be just as aggressively writing about these revelations? [nervous laugh]. Theres total complete differences between what was going on then and some of the things youve heard about recently in terms of the scientific integrity of the IPCC The bottom line is, there was a predisposition at my newspaper to say hey, thats a great get; theres a major front page story when Phil Cooney editing climate reports and all that stuff it fit a very comfortable theme that all environmental stories for the longest period of time had, which is theres bad guys and good guys. Shame on you, shame on you.
Could it possibly be that the Times would sit on a story of this magnitude simply because it doesnt say shame on you to the right people?
There may be some some additional insight to be gained by reading two pieces from Columbia Journalism Review: MIA on the IPCC, published January 29, and and U.S. Press Digs Into IPCC Story, two weeks later.
...
Wonder if all the AGW believers can handle reading something contrary? Lots of links...
Pajamas Media Climategate: The Worlds Biggest Story, Everywhere but Here
...Its truly a puzzle. This is a story that affects the future of human civilization, if some of the believers are right. It ties financially to people right up to the top of American politics, as well as major industries throughout the U.S. and the world. Whats more, the story would seem to be all wrapped up, ready for aggressive investigative reporters with the resources of the Times to expose. Some of the perpetrators have even begun to confess. Why wouldnt the Times cover it at all?
Are there any mentions of Professor Phil Jones admission [9] in a BBC interview that he isnt good at keeping records, that his notes were so disorganized that he couldnt comply with the Freedom of information requests, that there had indeed been no statistically significant warming since 1995 and that there was still significant uncertainty about the Medieval Warm Period, and even about climate science in general?
Thanks to Gerard Vanderleun of the American Digest blog [10] and his link to Tom Nelson [11], one of my new favorite climate aggregators we might have an answer. Nelson ran into this audio recording [12] (warning: 105MB mp3 file) of the first Shorenstein Center/Belfer Center seminar on news coverage of climate change. One of the speakers was Andrew Revkin of the New York Times. Heres part of what Revkin had to say, transcribed by Tom Nelson [13]:
One thing thats interesting to note in this administration shift is that all the coverage that I did of all those obfuscations, editing, censorship and stuff that the Bush administration got involved in was a no-brainer getting that on the front page of the New York Times Now, theoretically, should I be just as aggressively writing about these revelations? [nervous laugh]. Theres total complete differences between what was going on then and some of the things youve heard about recently in terms of the scientific integrity of the IPCC The bottom line is, there was a predisposition at my newspaper to say hey, thats a great get; theres a major front page story when Phil Cooney editing climate reports and all that stuff it fit a very comfortable theme that all environmental stories for the longest period of time had, which is theres bad guys and good guys. Shame on you, shame on you.
Could it possibly be that the Times would sit on a story of this magnitude simply because it doesnt say shame on you to the right people?
There may be some some additional insight to be gained by reading two pieces from Columbia Journalism Review: MIA on the IPCC, published January 29, and and U.S. Press Digs Into IPCC Story, two weeks later.
...
Probably because Jones made no such admission!Wonder if all the AGW believers can handle reading something contrary? Lots of links...
Pajamas Media Climategate: The Worlds Biggest Story, Everywhere but Here
...Its truly a puzzle. This is a story that affects the future of human civilization, if some of the believers are right. It ties financially to people right up to the top of American politics, as well as major industries throughout the U.S. and the world. Whats more, the story would seem to be all wrapped up, ready for aggressive investigative reporters with the resources of the Times to expose. Some of the perpetrators have even begun to confess. Why wouldnt the Times cover it at all?
Are there any mentions of Professor Phil Jones admission [9] in a BBC interview that he isnt good at keeping records, that his notes were so disorganized that he couldnt comply with the Freedom of information requests, that there had indeed been no statistically significant warming since 1995 and that there was still significant uncertainty about the Medieval Warm Period, and even about climate science in general?
B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.
G - There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?
There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.
Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.
We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.
Probably because Jones made no such admission!Wonder if all the AGW believers can handle reading something contrary? Lots of links...
Pajamas Media Climategate: The Worlds Biggest Story, Everywhere but Here
...Its truly a puzzle. This is a story that affects the future of human civilization, if some of the believers are right. It ties financially to people right up to the top of American politics, as well as major industries throughout the U.S. and the world. Whats more, the story would seem to be all wrapped up, ready for aggressive investigative reporters with the resources of the Times to expose. Some of the perpetrators have even begun to confess. Why wouldnt the Times cover it at all?
Are there any mentions of Professor Phil Jones admission [9] in a BBC interview that he isnt good at keeping records, that his notes were so disorganized that he couldnt comply with the Freedom of information requests, that there had indeed been no statistically significant warming since 1995 and that there was still significant uncertainty about the Medieval Warm Period, and even about climate science in general?
I love how when CON$ distort and pervert the news, they then cry foul when honest news sources don't distort and pervert the news also.
Jones didn't say there was not sufficient WARMING in the period from 1995 to 2009, Jones actually said there was a positive .12 deg warming for that period that was "quite close to the significance level" but the PERIOD OF TIME was not LONG ENOUGH!!!
And Jones said the uncertainty regarding the MWP was whether it was GLOBAL or not. He said there is not enough evidence to show it was global at this time. He also said if the MWP was found to be global but was not warmer than today globally, that would make the present warming unprecedented.
B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.
G - There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?
There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.
Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.
We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.
I read the interview, where do you think the above quotes came from? Your source was not honest to post the actual quotes!Probably because Jones made no such admission!Wonder if all the AGW believers can handle reading something contrary? Lots of links...
Pajamas Media Climategate: The Worlds Biggest Story, Everywhere but Here
I love how when CON$ distort and pervert the news, they then cry foul when honest news sources don't distort and pervert the news also.
Jones didn't say there was not sufficient WARMING in the period from 1995 to 2009, Jones actually said there was a positive .12 deg warming for that period that was "quite close to the significance level" but the PERIOD OF TIME was not LONG ENOUGH!!!
And Jones said the uncertainty regarding the MWP was whether it was GLOBAL or not. He said there is not enough evidence to show it was global at this time. He also said if the MWP was found to be global but was not warmer than today globally, that would make the present warming unprecedented.
B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.
G - There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?
There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.
Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.
We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.
Right, how does one measure the ocean covered part of global temps for MWP? That is the question.
BTW, Jones did say all that and more. Read the interview with BBC.
