What Fresh Hell Is This?

January 26, 2010

The Trib's Still Pushing "Climategate"

From today's editorial page:
A painstakingly detailed review of the Climategate e-mails bolsters the picture they paint of deliberate data manipulation by "scientists" bent on blaming mankind for climate change.

"Climategate Analysis," available from the nonprofit Science & Public Policy Institute (scienceandpublicpolicy.org), presents all the leaked e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit -- in chronological order, with commentary.

John P. Costella, the 149-page report's author, does a tremendous service by documenting, step by step, how science was perverted to advance misguided ideology, cynical politics and personal and professional interests.

Mr. Costella says massive "research" funding -- with strings attached requiring production of "evidence" backing preordained eco-wacko "findings" -- helped spread such venality far and wide among "scientists." What Climategate reveals and his report itemizes is "science" unworthy of the name -- and on a vast scale.

With rampant ignorance of how science should work, the public's gullibility hardly is surprising. Kudos to Costella and the institute for lessening that ignorance -- and the influence of the unsupported beliefs, masquerading as fact, espoused by what he calls "the Church of Climatology."
Not the frequent use of the ironic quotation marks. It means that the "scientists" who support the "science" based on the "evidence" are not really scientists and the "science" is not really science and the "evidence" evidence is not really evidence.

This should come as a surprise to the 1700 or so British scientists (note the lack of the ironical quotation marks) who signed this statement:
We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method. The science of climate change draws on fundamental research from an increasing number of disciplines, many of which are represented here. As professional scientists, from students to senior professors, we uphold the findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes that "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal" and that "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations".
The Trib, on the other hand, as the research of one John P Costella.

And who is John P Costella?

At the tail end of the report the Trib sites, in Costella's own bio paragraph, there's a link to his homepage. It's at a website called "Assassination Science" and some of the other research found at the website where John Costella chose to plant his bio include:
Some of the other areas of Costella's research include:
I kid you not. Assassination Science seems to be a mishmash of a ton of conspiracy theories (some contradictory some just goofy - there are links to research showing how the moon landing was faked and other links debunking various 9/11 conspiracies).

And it's the place where John Costella hangs his online hat.

So on the one hand you have 1700 UK scientists who support the science of global warming and on the other a Kennedy Assassination conspiracy theorist who doesn't.

And who does the Trib side with? Talk about teh crazie.


Ron said...

Talk about guilt by association! Dr. Costella has done a remarkable job and has the link directly to the email as he guides the reader through the acronym's, initial, who is who, nicknames, etc.

BTW, I found this site via Google where one can find birther, black helicopter, 911/truther's, etc.

Leonard Weinstein said...

It is interesting that 1700 British people (a FEW of which were scientists) signed a petition supporting AGW. It is even more interesting that 32,000 people (with over 9,000 PhD's) signed a petition against the AGW position. These 32,000 included some real Nobel prize winners. AGW has had the wheels come off, and it is interesting that some individuals have not "got it" yet.

beegdawg007 said...

So its number of scientists which matters to you? O.K. I call your hand. What you got?

1,700 scientists

31,000 scientists, (9,000 PhDs say CO2 can never cause a global warming catastrophe.. (actually the number is now 34,000).



Blue Number 2 said...

And these are all scientists who have done research on global warming?

I mean, my former roommate has a Phd and could have signed this. But he's a computer scientist and has no training in global warming research.

What was the criteria for these people to get on this petition?

john.costella said...

Guilt by association is a standard disinformation technique -- one even recommended in the Climategate emails themselves.

If you are interested in truth, then you would have mentioned that assassinationscience.com is Jim Fetzer's website, not mine. He kindly hosts my home page as a subdirectory of that site.

But yes, if you think that my work on the Zapruder film and the NTSB report into the Wellstone plane crash disqualifies me from analysing the Climategate emails, then you have the right to that opinion.

EdHeath said...

In reference to the emails, let us first and foremost remember that these emails were taken from the University of East Anglia. This was not a whistle blower either. Our having access to these emails is the result of a criminal act.

Meanwhile, we have heard from other academics that these were emails between colleagues and not unusual in that context. I would say that they were emails intended for a specific audience, not for world wide broadcast.

As far as the 1700 English individuals are concerned, the list I saw gives no way of addressing how many are "scientists" (nor do I know what Leonard Weinstein's criteria for scientist is), but from what I could see of the list, these seemed to be people working mostly at Universities or research centers. Whether the ones who did not use "Dr" are PhD's or not, I don't know. I do know Mr. Weinstein is citing a "counter" group that by his own description has only 28% PhD's.

But further, the National Academy of Science, the American Meteorological Society, the American Academy of Science and other scientific organizations have asserted that climate change is real and that humans have at least a hand in causing it. Now, admittedly a thousand years ago the finest minds on the planet thought that the sun revolves around the earth. Still no climate skeptic has ever explained how these organizations could be wrong about climate change.

Finally, with regard to Dr Costella, you yourself raise the notion that your other work has been in film or visual related areas. So there is a natural question about the level of expertise you bring to climate change.

jjauregui said...

This is MediaGate, not ClimateGate! Are you angry about this obvious RICO Act fraud and the national media's complicity in the cover-up, misinformation, reframing and misdirection of the issue and the related “carbon derivatives” market Obama’s Administration is spinning up? Why pay for propaganda? Take responsibility and take action. STOP all donations to the political party(s) responsible for this fraud. STOP donations to all environmental groups which funded this Global Warming propaganda campaign with our money, especially The World Wildlife Fund. They have violated the public trust. KEEP donations local, close to home. MAKE donations to Oklahoma’s Senator Inhofe, the only politician to stand firmly against this obvious government/media coordinated information operation (propaganda) targeted at its own people. People that government leaders and employees are sworn to protect. WRITE your state and federal representatives demanding wall to wall investigations of government sponsored propaganda campaigns and demand indictments of those responsible. WRITE your state and federal Attorneys General demanding Al Gore and others conducting Global Warming/Climate Change racketeering and mail fraud operations be brought to justice, indicted, tried, convicted and jailed. Carbon is the stuff of life. He (Obama) who controls carbon, especially CO2, controls the world. Think of the consequences if you do nothing! For one, the UK is becoming the poster child for George Orwell’s “1984” and the US government’s sponsorship of this worldwide Global Warming propaganda campaign puts it in a class with the failed Soviet Union’s relentless violation of the basic human right to truthful government generated information. Given ClimateGate’s burgeoning revelations of outrageous government misconduct and massive covert misinformation, what are the chances that this Administration’s National Health Care sales campaign is anywhere near the truth?



Dayvoe said...

Actually Mr Costella, it's about credibility - yours.

In a world where anyone can buy a domain name, you choose to have your bio hosted at a website that peddles conspiracy theories.

That, sir, makes you a conspiracy theorist and because of that your credibility takes a serious hit.

And the fact that you're trying your darndest to prove that the Zapruder film is a complete hoax more or less completely undermines any intellectual credibility you have left.

No matter what else you have to say.

EdHeath said...

Why do the climate skeptics hate America and love the Islamic fascistic terrorists? I know the best way I can support the troops is to take the bus to work, and when I shop for groceries either walk to the corner market (which happens to be the East End Food Coop) or at worst drive a hybrid to the store (at no more than 55 MPH on the highway). These are the steps we can all take to reduce America’s dependence on oil, including foreign oil and thus support the troops.

Besides, oil is a finite resource, and like many finite resources it gets more expensive to take out of the ground or the sand or out of coal as it gets more scarce. We use oil for more than just pushing SUV’s around too, like for plastic and fertilizer. So I figure the US will be in a better position relative to the rest of the world if we keep as much of our oil in our ground for as long as we can. Why do climate change skeptics hate America so much that they want to see it suffer in future as well as now?

I also use CFL’s in my apartment, along with a couple of LED bulbs in places, because they are more efficient and save me money in the long run. If, along with driving more efficiently, that all reduces carbon, well, I can’t help that. I am saving money that I can use to buy American made products and services. Why do climate change skeptics hate American workers?