But if it is indeed a hoax then why is the Defense Science Board looking into it?
From DiscoveryNews.com:
The United States' Department of Defense needs to know more about how climate change affects global security, recommends a report by the the department's science advisers, the Defense Science Board (DSB).Why waste all that time (and money) looking into something that Climategate proved to be a fraud?
Here's the report, if you wanted to read it yourself.
If this general argument of mine looks familiar, it's because it is. I made it way back in August, 2009. Then it was the National Intelligence Council - from the last months of the Bush Administration.
Still not a hoax.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWD, I pasted your link and it went nowhere. I searched the Daily Mail site for "Mr. Climate Change" (the first 100 results) and found nothing.
ReplyDeleteWhich Duke? John Wayne? Somebody in England?
And anyway, what do wind farms and phantom links have to do with climate change itself? Sure, you can post links or little quips with no context, but then how do we know you understand anything? You are unable to stay on point, unable to respond to the original post, or you just don't care about ... anything?
From powerlineblog..John Hinderaker(sp?)
ReplyDeleteJAMES HANSEN AND THE CORRUPTION OF SCIENCE
It recently came out that James Hansen, one of the two or three most prominent global warming alarmists on whose work the IPCC reports rest, “forgot” to report $1.6 million in outside income, as required by his government contracts. Is that significant? Well, yes: A handful of scientists, including Hansen, have gotten wealthy on climate alarmism. They have an enormous financial interest in the faux science they have done so much to perpetrate. It is more likely that the Pope would renounce Christianity than that Hansen, Michael Mann, etc., would change their minds about global warming, regardless of the evidence. (I say that because the Pope has far more intellectual integrity than the climate alarmists.)
Beyond that handful of leading alarmists, if you are involved in any way in climate science, you have a financial interest in alarmism. Even minor climate scientists get consulting contracts and are invited to present papers in exotic locales. And if you are not an alarmist, you have little or no chance of cashing in on the billions of dollars in government grants for climate research. Essentially, the closed world of climate “science” has been bought and paid for, largely with our tax dollars. Under these circumstances, it is remarkable that so many real scientists have been willing to forgo financial advantage and blow the whistle on the alarmists’ frauds.
Ken Haapala, Executive Vice President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, comments:
NASA’s James Hansen is back in the news for two reasons. He has a new paper claiming that the Moscow heat wave during 2010 and the Texas heat wave during 2011 provide a form of statistical proof of global warming. The pause in warming must be justified somehow! The study was quickly refuted by several commentators, most devastatingly by Lubos Motl.
The second reason Hansen is in the news is that he failed to report some $1,600,000 of outside income over several years as required by his contract for government employment. Normally, TWTW would not bother with such, but this is an exception for a number of reasons. One, in 1988 with great publicity, Hansen announced with great certainty that global warming threatens humanity. Two, with great publicity, Hansen declared that President Bush was trying to muzzle him. And, three, he was cited as the scientific advisor of Al Gore’s scientifically disgraceful film. Apparently, Hansen believes that his celebrity status exempts him from the regulations that govern other government scientists.
We can’t say it enough: global warming alarmism is not science. It is politics at best, outright fraud at worst.
The original post at the daily mail was taken down ...10 seconds of arduous search and waaa laaa:
ReplyDeleteBBC's 'environment analyst' accepted grants from East Anglia
Rick Moran
The BBC's global warming expert, Roger Harrabin, accepted 15,000 pounds in grants from the East Anglia climate change research center and then failed to disclose that fact when reporting on the subject.
The East Anglia research center was the focus of emails that made up the Climategate scandal.
Considering that warming proponents constantly accuse skeptics of being in the pocket of industry, it should be interesting to see what they have to say about this.
Daily Mail:
In none of Mr Harrabin's reports on the subject were the grants that he and his friend Dr Joe Smith had received from UEA ever mentioned. However, BBC insiders claim that the use to which the money was put - annual Real World seminars for top BBC executives on issues including climate change - had a significant impact on the Corporation's output.
'The seminars organised by Roger and his friend were part of a process which has effectively stifled all debate within the BBC about man-made global warming,' said one senior journalist. 'As far as the high-ups are concerned, the science is settled.'
Last night, Mr Harrabin insisted he does not derive any personal financial benefit from the grants and that far from making him more sympathetic to UEA, the sponsorship - of which the BBC had been aware - 'made me doubly determined to investigate Climategate. If I had been misled by UEA I wanted to be among the first to know'.
Mr. Harrabin is being facetious. Those seminars certainly didn't hurt his career any, which has a direct bearing on personal financial benefit accruing to him. And the fact that the BBC was aware of the arrangement is even more interesting. Evidently, ethics in journalism is not of much interest to the Beeb.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/11/bbcs_environment_analyst_accepted_grants_from_east_anglia.html#ixzz1eLOay97m
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEH
ReplyDeleteDuke of Edinburg...Prince Phillip
Climate change...man made pollution..dirty energy ..clean energy..wind farms...connect the dots
ReplyDeleteEH
ReplyDeleteI have posted responses..not just links,quips...but whole paragraphs....in most instances you have not responded to the question..issues I raised..
EH
ReplyDeleteNot a fan of Jack Kelly. A predictable, clanging bell. For life of me I do not understand why you spend so much time analyzing/critcizing his columns.. Do you ever disagree with EJ Dionne? Another clanging bell.....do I have enuf ammo?? Do my stock market holdings have value enuf to see me to the grave?
EH
ReplyDelete"Stay on point....understand anything... Don't care"
I'll try to conform to the expectations of the "we" referred to in your post...I am a work in progress..
On another subject:
How do you fill you rice bowl?
Snip cut paste
ReplyDeleteFrom American Thinker
Rick Moran
The same group that brought us the email dump last year from the East Anglia Climate Research Center have done it again.
Through a few blogs, they have made public about 5000 more emails from the warming advocates - and the emails show they are more than scientists in this regard - that reveal more attempts to hide bad news, more attempts to discredit critics and skeptics, and more arrogant assumptions that have dubious scientific value.
Here are a few samples compiled by the Telegraph:
/// The IPCC Process ///
<1939> Thorne/MetO:
Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the
uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these
further if necessary [...]
<3066> Thorne:
I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it
which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.
<1611> Carter:
It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much
talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by
a select core group.
<2884> Wigley:
Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of
dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...]
<4755> Overpeck:
The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what's
included and what is left out.
No doubt over the next few days we'll be getting more smoking guns. But at the very least, the emails that show some scientists deliberately destorying emails so as to avoid FOIA requests, and manipulating the IPCC to assure a certain outcome will provide ammunition for skeptics who are fighting to prevent what the group that released these emails refer to as the world having to spend "$37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels."
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/11/climategate_20_more_trouble_for_mann_et_al.html#ixzz1eXDTC0Lk
fm Forbes mag.
ReplyDeleteEd .. With a small effort you can locate the rest of the articale....
Image via Wikipedia
A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.
Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.
Regarding scientific transparency, a defining characteristic of science is the open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that independent parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate asserted experiments or observations. Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.
“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.
“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”