Is Climate Change really man-made?

[item8]

No such journal listed on the ISI database.
Can't say I'm surprised.

When all else fails just deny it exists! Desperate desperate desperate.
The above kind of cr@p is exactly why it is pointless "debating" with a liar.

http://www.takeonit.com/expert/144.aspx

Gerhard Gerlich is a Physics Professor at Carolo-Wilhelmina University, Germany.

Does atmospheric CO2 cause significant global warming?
Disagree
There is no atmospheric greenhouse effect, in particular CO2-greenhouse effect, in theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics. Thus it is illegitimate to deduce predictions which provide a consulting solution for economics and intergovernmental policy.

http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf ... ARMISM.pdf

Is this the DEFINITIVE DEATHKNELL to CLIMATE ALARMISTS?
UPDATE 21h50GMT 12 February 2008 : This page is all about the rebuttal dished out to the vociferous climate alarmists and not about the validity or otherwise of the German physicists’ scientific paper – two distinct issues.
Climate alarmists are in the same category as the Spanish Inquisitors ever were. Shame on them for their bigotry. Once again, we are shown that everytime climate alarmists are publicly confronted, their arguments do not hold up. Below is a must read from the New York Times Website! RealClimate.org's Raymond T. Pierrehumbert attempted to smear the two German physicists Gerlich and Tscheuschner who are feartured in the Senate 'Consensus Busters' Report of over 400 (now over 470 and growing) scientists. The German's fired back in a powerful rebuttal
below. Pierrehumbert has thus far disappeared after the German's rebuttal tore his arguments apart. Gerlich and Tscheuschner go to the heart of climate modeling and completely deflate Pierrehumbert.
Below written by: Physicist Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, of the Institute of Mathematical Physics at the Technical University Carolo-Wilhelmina in Braunschweig in Germany, and Dr. Ralf D. Tscheuschner co-authored a July 7, 2007 paper titled "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics."
Paper found here: http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161
New York Times Rebuttal of Gerlich and Tscheuschner:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/ ... ment-12204 974.
February 11th, 2008 4:25 am

Dear all,
Dear Dr. Raymond T. Pierrehumbert,
We (Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner) are very sorry that we cannot reply to all statements published in Internet blogs since our “times on-line” are rather limited. Especially, we do not reply to semi-anonymous virtual climate pets like Eli Rabett and other Internet geniusses such as Gavin Schmidt, Stefan Rahmstorf and others at “Real
Climate” or “Atmoz Blog” anti-scientific smear sites. Most of them do know so little about physics such that they quote the second law of thermodynamics incorrectly in order to falsify our work. Even the difference between energy, work and heat seems to be unknown to these experts. This cannot be the basis of a scientific discussion.
First, let us start with discussing the identity of Eli Rabett. We have been informed that Eli Rabett is the pseudonym of Josh Halpern, a chemistry professor at Howard University. He is a laser spectroscopist with no formal training in climatology and theoretical physics.
On 2007-11-14 we sent Josh Halpern the following E-Mail:
“Josh Halpern alias Eli Rabbett - [If you are not Josh Halpern, then forgive me and delete this message immediately.]
Apparently, believing to be protected by anonymity you (and others) want to establish a quality of a scientific discussion that is based on offenses and arrogance rather than on critical rationalism and exchange of arguments. Scientist cannot tolerate and endorse what is becoming a quality in weblogs and what is pioneered by IPCC-conformal
virtual climate bloggers. I must urge you to reconsider.

My questions to you:
1. What is the most general formulation of the second law of thermodynamics?
2. What is your favorite exact definition of the atmospheric greenhouse effect within the frame of physics?
3. Could you provide me a literature reference of a rigorous derivation of this effect?
4. How do you compute the supposed atmospheric greenhouse effect (the supposed warming effect, not simply the absorption) from given reflection, absorption, emission spectra of a gas mixture, well-formulated
magnetohydrodynamics, and unknown dynamical interface and other boundary conditions?
5. Do you really believe, that you can transform an unphysical myth into a physical truth on such a low level of argumentation?”
We did not get any response.
We would like to encourage the readers of this blog to read our paper, at least the conclusions.
It can be found here:
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161
The following is a delayed reply to the very offending posting #111 of Raymond T. Pierrehumbert who wrote to Marc
Morano:
>“You can obfuscate all you want, but you can’t hide from the fact that we have been going at this for nearly two weeks now and none of the skeptics we have discussed so far have established a credible publication record for the ideas that qualify them as skeptics in your eyes. Whatever these ideas are, they evidently can’t stand up to the same kind of
scrutiny that the ideas in the IPCC report have been subjected to.”
Neither the validity of a scientific result depends on the publication record of its authors, nor the number of publications is an indicator of the quality of research .
To put it bluntly, virtual climate research (Pierrhumbert and his buddies may call it “real climate” research) is nonsense (non-science). The thousands of publications reviewing the results of these computer games are not worth the papers they are printed on, not to mention the hardware, CPU times and memory. (my emphasis)
>”Today I’m in a good mood, so I’ll give you a twofer: Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner. Neither of these physicists has produced a single peer-reviewed paper bearing on any aspect of climate science, or even on the radiative physics underpinning climate science.”
Indeed, this is a great advantage for the whole discussion, both scientifically and politically. It is a presupposition for to have a fresh look at the topic. We (Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner) are unbiased totally independent theoretical physicists, familiar with stochastic description of nature and quantum field theory, respectively, and last but
not least familiar with the physics lab and software engineering. Of course, we have published our papers in peerreviewed journals, and on topics that belong to science, not to science fiction as the computer games of global climatology do. (my emphasis) We are physicists, not climatologists.
The main results of our paper are:
- the CO2 greenhouse effect is not an effect in the sense of a physical effect and, hence, simply does not exist;
- computer aided global climatology will not be science, if science is defined as a method to verify or falsify conjectures, according to the usual definition of science. (my emphasis)
(We do not get into the ideas of e.g. Feyerabend “anything goes” here in that they do not apply to physics, in particular to applied physics, e.g. aeroplanes).
Due to research grants, huge amount of financial support, virtual global climatologists suffer from a kind of omnipotence delusion comparable to the state of highness of the early super string community. (my emphasis)
However, physics is different. “Physics is where the action is”, i.e., finally, reproducible results in the lab. We cannot overemphasize that science is a method to prove conjectures, and not to go on-stage like the pop star Al Gore performing what-if-when-scenarios beyond any reality and scaring kids.
>”The two links you provide in fact point to the same paper. What you seem to be unaware of is that this paper has not been published in any journal. It appears only in the unreviewed ArXIV repository of manuscripts. This repository has no screening whatsoever as to the the content of the papers posted. Indeed, a look at the paper by anybody who has even a nodding acquaintance with radiation physics shows why they wouldn’t dare subject it to peer review. About 40 pages of this 90 page opus is in fact devoted to discussing the well-known flaws in the glass-greenhouse analogy sometimes used in simplified explanations of the phenomenon. These flaws have no bearing whatever on the manner
in which the greenhouse effect is actually computed in climate models.”
We are not sure, whether you, Dr. Pierrehumbert, really know what you are talking about. (my emphasis)The full theory of the atmospheric system must be a fusion of magnetohydrodynamics and radiation theory including earth’s gravity and rotation. The full theory should be a multi component theory and should include phase separation (interesting!), plasma physics, and highly involved boundary conditions which, in general, even cannot be written down. You, Dr. Pierrehumbert, first solve the turbulence problem, and then we can discuss the existence of a local
thermodynamic equilibrium for the photon bath in which the atmosphere is embedded. Point us to only one source in the literature, where the CO2 term enters the fundamental equations (not the useless henomenological toy model equations). (my emphasis)
Mathematically, even within the most simplified models you cannot predict anything, because all these ones crudely approximate non-linear partial differential equations with unknown boundary conditions. There is
simply no physical foundation of the computer models with and without CO2. (my emphasis)
>”The rest of the paper is simply bad physics; in fact, if they were right, not only would there be no anthropogenic greenhouse effect, there would be no greenhouse effect at all!”
Boy, you got it.
>”They’ve proved too much!”
We did not prove anything.
We did not show anything.
We only demonstrated that you and your virtual global climatology buddies and Al Gore and the peace Nobel prize committee do not know anything about fundamental university physics. We conclusively showed that you guy and your buddies never will prove or disprove anything in the context of your unproven computer models. (my emphasis)
Moreover, we are sure that you are fully aware of this fact. (my emphasis)
>”The Earth would be a solid ball of ice, and Venus would be 400 degrees colder than it is.”
In our paper, we clearly show that the standard calculation giving the 33 Celsius degrees for the greenhouse effect is wrong. Moreover, the Venus problem has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect, since in this case even the core presupposition is not fulfill ed, namely that the sunlight reaches the ground.
>”And, as an aside, infrared weather satellites wouldn’t work either.”
Apparently, you do not know the subtle difference between absorption and warming. Read Chandrasekhar, read Unsoeld, read Schack.
>”Since the work was never published, it of course has never been discussed in the peer reviewed literature. The obvious flaws in the paper cannot be discussed easily in a comment box, but for a good general guide to the junk physics in this paper I refer the reader to Eli Rabett’s discussion at …”
Our paper is a brand new preprint submitted for publication. You are allowed to cite it in your future work according to the arXiv conventions.
Apparently, you rank a peer reviewed published paper higher than a preprint, no matter of its content. Even so, really surprising in this context is that you attribute to the statements of a semi-anonymous virtual climate pet, namely Eli Rabett, the highest value.
What is this about? (my emphasis)
Gerhard Gerlich
Ralf D. Tscheuschner
— Posted by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner
With thanks to
Marc Morano
Communications Director
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) Inhofe Staff
202-224-5762
202-224-5167 (fax)
marc_morano@epw.senate.

http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/23/230 ... 4984X.html

International Journal of Modern Physics B (IJMPB)

DOI: 10.1142/S021797920904984X
Abstract | Full Text (PDF, 1,714KB) | References
Title: FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS
Author(s):
GERHARD GERLICH
Institut für Mathematische Physik, Technische Universität Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig, Mendelssohnstraße 3, D-38106 Braunschweig, Federal Republic of Germany
RALF D. TSCHEUSCHNER
Dr. Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Dipl.-Phys. Postfach 602762, D-22377 Hamburg, Federal Republic of Germany
History:
Received 30 July 2007
Revised 6 January 2009
Abstract:
The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics, such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature, it is taken for granted that such a mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper, the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33° is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

[chek]

No such journal listed on the ISI database.
Can't say I'm surprised.

When all else fails just deny it exists! Desperate desperate desperate.
The above kind of cr@p is exactly why it is pointless "debating" with a liar.

Thinking rationally isn't your strongpoint, is it banjoboy?

It doesn't exist in the ISI database where scientists go to see what has been published on a subject previously.
And if it's not in the database, it may as well not exist because
nobody will ever know it exists.

Just because some crank asserts there is no infra red absorption
and re-emission by CO2 (which there provably is) does not make him right.

There's a very good reason it can only get airplay on an obscure website.
One of your denier chums probably paid for the hosting.

Why don't you try reading some real science instead of only where your astroturf sites direct you to?

You could always start with Spencer Weart’s “Discovery of Global Warming
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

It might show you what you're up against: people who can think.

[Mr-Bridger]

No such journal listed on the ISI database.
Can't say I'm surprised.
Science, and the understanding of it, isn't a strongpoint of the deniers.

If that science is being bent or distorted to accomplish a goal, then it is null and void.

In your dreams.
There are too many independent science establishments, universities and commercial organisations dependent on actual real science to be in on a big conspiracy. Which any fool can allege with no evidence.

What is being bent and distorted is the work of real honest scientists by an unholy alliance of big business, elements of the US government and Christian fundamentalists using the same reality-denying, faith-based tactics that the creationists use.

Details to follow when I get them organised into a presentable format.
It takes longer when it's not just a copy and paste job, you see.

I cant wait Chek, just be careful with your numbers we wouldnt llike to see any dodgy data now would we hahahhah

[Mr-Bridger]

It might show you what you're up against: people who can think.

That argument works both ways, YOU and your belief are also up against people who can think, not just follow the herd.

[TonyGosling]

Chek seems to be losing it to me and out fact'ed?

Is this the agenda behind the climate change phenomenon?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHknLp-kP3g[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHknLp-kP3g

[item8]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5W14cGA1_Y&[/youtube]

[item8]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QuCh7pVXvA&[/youtube]

[item8]

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/vincent-gr ... exclusive/

Vincent Gray on Climategate: ‘There Was Proof of Fraud All Along’ (PJM Exclusive)

IPCC expert reviewer Gray — whose 1,898 comments critical of the 2007 report were ignored — recently found that proof of the fraud was public for years.
November 27, 2009 - by Vincent Gray

Nothing about the revelations surprises me. I have maintained email correspondence with most of these scientists for many years, and I know several personally. I long ago realized that they were faking the whole exercise.

When you enter into a debate with any of them, they always stop cold when you ask an awkward question. This applies even when you write to a government department or a member of Parliament. I and many of my friends have grown accustomed to our failure to publish and to lecture, and to the rejection of our comments submitted prior to every IPCC report.

But only recently did I realize that I had evidence of their fraud in my possession almost from the birth of my interest in the subject.

I had copies of these two papers in 1990:

Jones, P. D., P. Ya. Groisman, M. Coughlan, N. Plummer, W. C. Wang & T. R. Karl 1990. Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land, Nature 347 169- 172.

Wang, W-C, Z. Zeng, T. R Karl, 1990. Urban Heat Islands in China. Geophys. Res. Lett. 17, 2377-2380.

The first paper has been the major evidence presented by Jones in all of the IPCC reports to dismiss the influence of urban change on the temperature measurements, and also has been used as an excuse for the failure to mention most of the unequivocal evidence that such urban effects exist. The paper was even dragged out again for the 2007 IPCC report.

The second paper, which shared authors Wang and Karl from the first paper, used the very same data from China which the first paper used to demonstrate the absence of urban influence — yet instead concluded that same data to be proof of the existence of urban influence.

In 2007, the following paper exposed the whole business:

Keenan, D.”The Fraud Allegation Against Some Climatic Research of Wei-Chyug Wang. Energy and Environment, 18, 985-995.

The author Keenan obtained the original Chinese data and found the claim that the data referred to a continuous series was unfounded. He accused Wang of fraud — and it is interesting to read that Tom Wigley (of the CRU emails) agrees with him.

Wigley fails to say, however, that his colleagues Jones and Karl are guilty of much worse than Wang — as they continued to use their fraudulent paper to boost their constant and sometimes daily assertion that recent global temperatures are unprecedented.

Wang was cleared of fraud by his university. But what about Jones and Karl?

In 1999, I had a stroke of luck. I asked one of the IPCC officials for the data from which one of their maps was compiled, and I received it. I wrote a paper analyzing the results and submitted it to Geophysical Research Letters. They just sat on it. I instead published it on John Daly’s website. Today, it is still the only paper recognized by Google on “Regional Temperature Change.”

I now know my paper was not critical enough, since we have proof that the basic data and its processing is far more dubious than I had envisaged.

I tried to update my paper and resubmit it. Nothing doing. Since the small group — revealed within the CRU emails — control most of the peer reviewers, very few peer reviewed papers which criticize that group are allowed to appear in the most prominent published literature which dominates the academic establishment.

I have only been able to find a place to release my criticisms on the internet, now the only realm where unfettered scientific discussion is possible.

That last sentence says it all. We are in a lot of trouble unless we wake up the masses.

[item8]

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andr ... nd_of_you/

A betrayal of science - and of you

Andrew Bolt, Sunday, November 29, 2009 at 10:02am

Frank J. Tipler, professor of mathematical physics at Tulane University, on the true significance of Climategate:

The now non-secret data prove what many of us had only strongly suspected — that most of the evidence of global warming was simply made up. That is, not only are the global warming computer models unreliable, the experimental data upon which these models are built are also unreliable. As Lord Monckton has emphasized here at Pajamas Media, this deliberate destruction of data and the making up of data out of whole cloth is the real crime — the real story of Climategate.

It is an act of treason against science. It is also an act of treason against humanity, since it has been used to justify an attempt to destroy the world economy.

UPDATE

So quick that I missed it. But the ABC’s 7.30 Report did ask Climate Change Minister Penny Wong one question about Climategate, and - just for the record - here is her complete non-answer:

KERRY O’BRIEN: Speaking of the science, very quickly, what’s your reaction to the emails from the East Anglia climate change research unit in Britain obtained by hackers, which sceptics are now using to claim that leading scientists are manipulating climate change data to get the outcomes they want to promote climate change. Did those revelations give you any pause for thought, any concern?

PENNY WONG: I looked to where the weight of the science is, where the consensus science is, and I look to the fact that our own scientific institutions in Australia, the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology, the international scientific community. I look to ...

KERRY O’BRIEN: But these are part of the international science community.

PENNY WONG: I look to these people. And it’s very clear that the weight of scientific opinion, the consensus science is that climate change is real, that human beings are contributing to it and we have to start to do something about it. The time for action is now.

So Wong’s answer is that she trusts the weight of the evidence that’s produced by a process that’s revealed as corrupt. She trusts a consensus that we now know was ahieved through intimidation, censorship and fraud. And that’s why Australia must have a great green tax on everything.

Wong is a denier.

UPDATE 2

Reader Aard Knox follows up my post yesterday on the confused David Jones, the warmist preacher who heads the National Climate Centre at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology:

Andrew, I followed up your pointer on David Jones who said:

Anthony - due to professional reasons - I am unable to comment on Bolt’s column. But as with most of his material it is rubbish.

Last night there was a lengthy, intelligent rebuttal of Jones’ statement which questioned amongst other thing how he could say “No comment” and then pass judgement on what you had written. The poster also cited historical records to show there is nothing unusual in the present weather pattern.

This morning it has been deleted and Jones has posted, in its place, the following:

This forum is for those who enjoy the weather. Many of us moved here because we tired of arguing with “sceptics” who have no interest in the weather, but rather use forums to promote political views. I’ve locked this topic.

If that’s how the planetweather site deals with reasoned debate - by allowing a poster (who I think was a first-timer) to lock down the subject - it has absolutely no credibility.

It’s debate, Jim, but not as you know it. A lovely insight, perhaps, in the kind of “peer review” that Jones prefers.

(Thanks to reader J. Hansford.)

[item8]

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/4140/Geol ... of-science

Geologist 'appalled' at NYT's Krugman: 'Legitimate scientists do not doctor data...hijack peer-review...send fraudulent data to UN that is used to perpetuate greatest hoax in the history of science'

Legitimate scientists do not 'provide false data to further legislation on climate change that will result in huge profits for corrupt lobbyists and politicians'
Sunday, November 29, 2009By Marc Morano – Climate Depot

Prominent Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook's comments were originally published on ABC News website in reaction to New York Times Columnist Paul Krugman's dismissal of the significance of ClimateGate. Dr. Easterbrook is an Emeritus Professor at Western Washington University who has authored eight books and 150 journal publications. Easterbrook's full resume is here.

Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook - November 29, 2009

"I've spent four decades studying global climate change and as a scientist I am appalled at [NYT's Paul] Krugman's cavalier shrugging off the Hadley email scandal as 'just the way scientists talk among themselves.' That's like saying it's alright for politicians to be corrupt because that's the way they are."

"Legitimate scientists do not doctor data, delete data they don't like, hide data they don't want seen, hijack the peer review process, personally attack other scientists whose views differ from theirs, send fraudulent data to the IPCC that is used to perpetuate the greatest hoax in the history of science, provide false data to further legislation on climate change that will result in huge profits for corrupt lobbyists and politicians, and tell outright lies about scientific data." [End Easterbrook statement.]

Related Links:

All Hail the Planet! 'Immorality of climate-change denial': NYT's Krugman accuses Congressmen who voted against climate bill of 'treason against the planet!' - June 29, 2009

Skeptics guilty of Treason? Is NYT's Krugman Inciting Violence? - July 3, 2009

NYT's Tom Friedman lauds China's eco-policies: 'One party can just impose politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward' - Sept. 9, 2009

UN scientists turn on each other: UN Scientist Declares Climategate colleagues Mann, Jones and Rahmstorf 'should be barred from the IPCC process' -- They are 'not credible any more' - November 27, 2009

Flashback April 2009: S. African UN Scientist: 'The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart -- Heads will roll!'

UK Scientist: 'Case for climate fears is blown to smithereens...whole theory should be destroyed and discarded and UN conference should be closed' - Nov. 26, 2009

Pressure Mounts From Inside: Disband IPCC? Scientist from U. of East Anglia Suggests 'UN IPCC has run its course...politicizes climate science...authoritarian, exclusive form of knowledge production' - Nov. 27, 2009

U.S. Scientist on ClimateGate: 'It is an act of treason against science. It is also an act of treason against humanity'

Aussie Scientist: 'The warmers captured the whole system – all the journals, all their editors and journals' boards. They successfully removed inconvenient editors - November 29, 2009

Flashback 2006: Wegman Report: 'We found that at least 43 authors have direct ties to Michael Mann...closely connected'

[item8]

http://clivecrook.theatlantic.com/archi ... tegate.php

More on Climategate

Clive Crook, 30 Nov 2009 09:40 am

In my previous post on Climategate I blithely said that nothing in the climate science email dump surprised me much. Having waded more deeply over the weekend I take that back.

The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering. And, as Christopher Booker argues, this scandal is not at the margins of the politicised IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] process. It is not tangential to the policy prescriptions emanating from what David Henderson called the environmental policy milieu [subscription required]. It goes to the core of that process.

One theme, in addition to those already mentioned about the suppression of dissent, the suppression of data and methods, and the suppression of the unvarnished truth, comes through especially strongly: plain statistical incompetence. This is something that Henderson's study raised, and it was also emphasised in the Wegman report on the Hockey Stick, and in other independent studies of the Hockey Stick controversy. Of course it is also an ongoing issue in Steve McIntyre's campaign to get hold of data and methods. Nonetheless I had given it insufficient weight. Climate scientists lean very heavily on statistical methods, but they are not necessarily statisticians. Some of the correspondents in these emails appear to be out of their depth. This would explain their anxiety about having statisticians, rather than their climate-science buddies, crawl over their work.

I'm also surprised by the IPCC's response. Amid the self-justification, I had hoped for a word of apology, or even of censure. (George Monbiot called for Phil Jones to resign, for crying out loud.) At any rate I had expected no more than ordinary evasion. The declaration from Rajendra Pachauri that the emails confirm all is as it should be is stunning. Science at its best. Science as it should be. Good lord. This is pure George Orwell. And these guys call the other side "deniers".

While I'm listing surprises, let me note how disappointed I was by The Economist's coverage of all this. "Leaked emails do not show climate scientists at their best," it observes. No indeed. I should say I worked at the magazine for years, admire it as much as ever, and rely on the science coverage especially. But I was baffled by its reaction to the scandal. "Little wonder that the scientists are looking tribal and jumpy, and that sceptics have leapt so eagerly on such tiny scraps as proof of a conspiracy," its report concludes. Tiny scraps? I detest anti-scientific thinking as much as The Economist does. I admire expertise, and scientific expertise especially; like any intelligent citizen I am willing to defer to it. But that puts a great obligation on science. The people whose instinct is to respect and admire science should be the ones most disturbed by these revelations. The scientists have let them down, and made the anti-science crowd look wise. That is outrageous.

Megan McArdle adopts a world-weary tone similar to The Economist's: this is how science is done in the real world. If I were a scientist, I would resent that. She has criticised the emails and the IPCC response to them, then says she still believes the consensus view on climate change. Well, that was my position at the end of last week, and I suppose it still is. But how do I defend it? There is far more of a problem here for the consensus view than Megan and ordinarily reliable commentators like The Economist acknowledge. I am not a climate scientist. In the end I have to trust the experts. That is what we are asked to do. "Trust us, we're scientists".

Remember that this is not an academic exercise. We contemplate outlays of trillions of dollars to fix this supposed problem. Can I read these emails and feel that the scientists involved deserve to be trusted? No, I cannot. These people are willing to subvert the very methods--notably, peer review--that underwrite the integrity of their discipline. Is this really business as usual in science these days? If it is, we should demand higher standards--at least whenever "the science" calls for a wholesale transformation of the world economy. And maybe some independent oversight to go along with the higher standards.

The IPCC process needs to be fixed, as a matter of the greatest urgency. Read David Henderson or the Wegman report to see how. And in the meantime, let's have some independent inquiries into what has been going on.

[item8]

http://www.galleryview.org/the-definiti ... imategate/

The definition of “Climate deniers” has changed, thanks to ClimateGate
November 30, 2009 By admin In Politics

Just a few months ago, the term “Climate Deniers” meant someone who denied that Global Warming was an absolute, unquestionable fact.

If you asked why some areas are colder, or why the movie “The Day After Tomorrow” depicted massive cold fronts, or why Al Gore says that air conditioning is a killer threat while running around town in an air conditioned limo, then you were a knuckle-dragging climate denier.

If you didn’t fall on your face and instantly believe anything the left said about the climate, you were a climate denier.

If you questioned the “hockey-stick” graph, which has been abandoned for a long time by most climatologists, you were a climate denier.

If you wondered why the founder of The Weather Channel says the Global Warming movement is a hoax, you were a climate denier.

If you wondered why the planet has been cooling since 1998, you were a climate denier.

If you wondered why over 31,000 scientists (over 9,000 of them having PhD’s) have signed a petition rejecting global warming, then you were a climate denier.

After the revelation of private emails from the Hadley CRU at East Anglia over a week ago, the term climate deniers now has taken on an entirely new meaning. As you can see from the massive amount of information on the ClimateDepot website, as well as the online, searchable database of the emails and documents (which have been authenticated by officials at the East Anglia University), the whole Global Warming movement has been based on an elaborate fraud. Data was manipulated to create the impression that the world was warming (when it was really cooling for the past 11 years) and it was all the fault of the modern western lifestyle.

The new definition of a “Climate Denier” is one who denies that the ClimateGate fraud is real, or that the emails and documents are real, or, worst of all, says it doesn’t matter and that their plans to reduce the lifestyles of the populace and institute cap and trade and other heavy taxes will continue. One such group is the UN group that was heavily relying on the data from the Hadley CRU, which has now been completely discredited.

There is “virtually no possibility” of a few scientists biasing the advice given to governments by the UN’s top global warming body, its chair said today.

Not only do the leaked emails show that those involved were trying to avoid releasing their data under the Freedom of Information Request in England, but that they were also destroying the raw data.

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

It’s obvious they were trying to create a “consensus” that global warming was an undeniable fact, whether to push a political agenda or gain financially (or both).

The climatologists at the center of the leaked email and document scandal have taken the line that it is all much ado about nothing.

It’s interesting that Phil Jones, one of those at the center of ClimateGate, profited heavily from this fraud. He’s apparently secured over $22 million in grant money.

“So far, the most interesting file I found in the “documents” directory is pdj_grant_since1990.xls which shows that since 1990, Phil Jones has collected a staggering 13.7 million British pounds ($22.6 million) in grants.

Someone should point the UN panel toward the Russians, who have recently said that it’s getting colder in the Artic.

As stated before, the only thing man-made about Global Warming is the hoax surrounding it.

[item8]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 05490.html

Well well well. Turns out it was the Climate liars who were getting all the handouts!!

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 called—without irony—the climate change "consensus."

To read some of the press accounts of these gifts—amounting to about 0.0027% of Exxon's 2008 profits of $45 billion—you 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 data—facts 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.

Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents hacked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he'd been awarded in the 1990s.

Why did the money pour in so quickly? Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who better to ring it than people like Mr. Jones, one of its likeliest beneficiaries?

Thus, the European Commission's most recent appropriation for climate research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that's not counting funds from the EU's member governments. In the U.S., the House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA's climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA's, and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. The states also have a piece of the action, with California—apparently not feeling bankrupt enough—devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative. In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal.

And all this is only a fraction of the $94 billion that HSBC Bank estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls "green stimulus"—largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes—of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely.

Supply, as we know, creates its own demand. So for every additional billion in government-funded grants (or the tens of millions supplied by foundations like the Pew Charitable Trusts), universities, research institutes, advocacy groups and their various spin-offs and dependents have emerged from the woodwork to receive them.
The Climate Emails

Today these groups form a kind of ecosystem of their own. They include not just old standbys like the Sierra Club or Greenpeace, but also Ozone Action, Clean Air Cool Planet, Americans for Equitable Climate Change Solutions, the Alternative Energy Resources Association, the California Climate Action Registry and so on and on. All of them have been on the receiving end of climate change-related funding, so all of them must believe in the reality (and catastrophic imminence) of global warming just as a priest must believe in the existence of God.

None of these outfits are per se corrupt, in the sense that the monies they get are spent on something other than their intended purposes. But they depend on an inherently corrupting premise, namely that the hypothesis on which their livelihood depends has in fact been proved. Absent that proof, everything they represent—including the thousands of jobs they provide—vanishes. This is what's known as a vested interest, and vested interests are an enemy of sound science.

Which brings us back to the climategate scientists, the keepers of the keys to the global warming cathedral. In one of the more telling disclosures from last week, a computer programmer writes of the CRU's temperature database: "I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seems to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. . . . Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight. . . . We can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!"

This is not the sound of settled science, but of a cracking empirical foundation. And however many billion-dollar edifices may be built on it, sooner or later it is bound to crumble.

Write to bstephens@wsj.com

[item8]

http://www.bluegrasspundit.com/2009/11/ ... al-as.html

Global Warming Supporters In Denial As Climategate Scandal Continues To Fester

Monday, November 30, 2009


The Climategate scandal continues to fester like an infected wound covered with a wet bandage. The mainstream media and global warmists are in denial of the spreading Climategate scandal and trying to move on as if nothing has happened. Left wing pundits deny there is a smoking gun; in spite of smoking gun evidence. Global warming scientists are attacking each other while the UN IPCC chief tells us there is "virtually no possibility" they are wrong. Meanwhile, The scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted they dumped their data and think we should just 'trust them.' White House climate czar Carol Browner has drank the Kool-aid. She rejects the Climategate claims of doctored data revealed in these leaked emails. Undoubtedly, her B.A. degree from the University of Florida in English and University of Florida College of Law degree make her a an expert on the worst scientific scandal of modern times. The cover up circus wouldn't be complete without Robert Gibbs doing his 'Comical Ali' (pictured above) impression.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAo4rqqmkFA&[/youtube]

[item8]

Fox news being almost reasonable!!!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpYJyowEWBE&[/youtube]

[item8]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... &aid=16326

The Day Global Warming Stood Still

by Mark Sircus

Global Research, November 29, 2009
International Medical Veritas Association

From the mainstream press we read, “As scientists confirm the earth has not warmed at all in the past decade, others wonder how this could be and what it means for Copenhagen. It will be a very cold winter of discontent for the warm-mongers. The climate show-and-tell in Copenhagen next month will be nothing more than a meaningless carbon-emitting jaunt, unable to decide just whom to blame or how to divvy up the profitable spoils of climate change hysteria. [1]

Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, the leading Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee said, “Until this year, any scientist, reporter or politician who dared raise even the slightest suspicion about the science behind global warming was dismissed and repeatedly mocked. Today I have been vindicated.”

And then we find out that hackers broke into the computer network run by the Hadley Climate Research Unit, removing 61 megabytes of e-mails and data, which they promptly spilled onto the Web and reveal something startling: The scientists at Hadley, one of the world’s leading climate change study centers, aren’t scientifically objective at all. If true, this is massive scientific fraud.

It was almost two years ago that I first reported on Global Cooling and I had waited a full year before I did so because I wanted to be sure before I risked being such a contrarian on this hugely important subject. Now even the BBC is weighing in on global cooling as are many others. [2]

October 2009 will go down as the 3rd coolest October on record for the United States, according to the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). Records go back to 1880. [3]

The mainstream press is finally coming to the conclusion that the entire climate debate about global warming is about to collapse so they had better get out of that game and come clean with what is happening with the sun and what that means for planet earth and all the people on it. The global warming gig has played itself out and has only gone on as long as it has because climate change was a weapon for more mass taxation. [4]

Global warming is hard to maintain as heaters across the country are being turned on much earlier than usual. Stunning records for cold were set across the nation increasing the demand for heating fuels over the weekend. The Chicago Marathon, according to the Chicago Tribune, had its coldest start since a 33 degree low in 2002 which they say was a far cry from 2007 when temperatures soared into the upper 80s and officials canceled the marathon after 3 1/2 hours into the event.

In Denver it was reported that an arctic cold front moved in and broke a cold temperature record that stood for 104 years. In fact on the 9th of October Denver saw temperatures plunge 23 degrees in five hours setting the stage to make that record low. There were record lows in many parts of the country like Wyoming, Utah, Illinois and Iowa and if records were not broken in many areas it was extremely close. [5]

So it might be a long hard winter in the northern hemisphere and that is bad news for the many who can hardly afford increased heating bills. It was not that long ago that we read the headlines of thousands dying from the heat; soon it will be from the cold and already we are hearing of the mounting deaths from the flu, which gets its fuel from the cold weather.

Throughout history we have had men and women leaders from the earliest times leading humanity toward destruction and ruin and it is not hard to understand their motives of corruption, power and greed. In December leaders from all over the world are gathering in Copenhagen and the good news about this meeting is that God himself did an end run around them mocking the meeting and exposing these men and women who work for the world’s elite; who just cannot seem to get it straight what it means to be a human being. The Copenhagen Treaty was meant to create a world government for the purpose of policing all nations for their carbon emissions but they are being foiled by Nature who just does not want to cooperate. The best laid plans of both mice and men get broken asunder and that’s just the way life is.

As politicians they were making their plans to sign an international treaty about global warming and carbon taxes – setting up structures for increased power of the now partially in place world government – record breaking cold temperatures were being set in both Europe and America. We still see news about global warming when it is clear that the world is in a period of cooling as the sun cycles down and sun spots vanish and the oceans cool.

As a startling example of how a central world leader can weigh in on the wrong side; a few weeks ago U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he’s hopeful the U.S. Senate will pass a significant bill to limit carbon emissions because of global warming. Such is the arrogance of the world’s elite and the political people who follow them that even with the deep chill surrounding window panes everywhere even before real winter sets in they had every intention of signing this treaty until President Obama threw in the towel.

Prof. Don J. Easterbrook comes to the conclusion, “Global warming (i.e, the warming since 1977) is over. The minute increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.008%) was not the cause of the warming—it was a continuation of natural cycles that occurred over the past 500 years. The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling, perhaps much deeper than the global cooling from about 1945 to 1977. Just how much cooler the global climate will be during this cool cycle is uncertain. Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycles. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely.” [6]

Meanwhile despite the international financial crisis pollution is still increasing as we continue to blanket the planet with mercury from coal fired electrical plants around the world. Mercury and thousands of other chemicals continue to be released in staggering tonnages and this is the real threat that we and our children face. Again they had most people worrying about the wrong thing – our old friend CO2.

[chek]

Chek seems to be losing it to me and out fact'ed?

There is, as we can see, an avalanche of nonsense in the run up to 6th December.

I notice that apart from a bunch of opinion pieces and assertions there's no substance in any of it.

Would even one of you upholders of the denier faith care to condense all the 'facts' you're supposedly 'outfacting' me with into a single paragraph?
Or maybe that's too ambitious.
How about a single sentence?

If indeed any of you have even that much between you.

Thanks.

[Mr-Bridger]

Shocking UN Document Divulges Climate Cult Brainwashing

Kids coerced into performing global warming song as strategy document reveals plan to greenwash young minds by turning environmentalism into gaia religion

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, November 30, 2009

With the reverberations of climategate still echoing, it has now emerged that children are being greenwashed in public schools by being forced to sing climate cult ditties and hate their parents as part of a United Nations propaganda program aimed at capturing young minds, as the UN itself officially acknowledges the global warming mantra as a new religion.

A shocking new UN strategy document also reveals how elitists are recruiting members of academia from all over the globe in an effort to hide the “end-run” around national sovereignty that their program represents.

“When did global warming turn into a forced religion?,” asks the New York Post’s Andrea Peyser as she tells the story of how her daughter came home from school singing the words ” . . . You can hear the warning — GLOBAL WARMING . . . “.

“All the kids had been coerced into singing this catchy ditty, which we called “The Warming Song,” at a concert for parents. Further song lyrics scolded selfish adults (that would be us) for polluting our planet and causing a warming scourge that would, in no short order, kill all the polar bears and threaten the birds and bees,” writes Peyser.

That’s right, in the spirit of the Club of Rome’s 1991 resolution to make humanity the enemy in creating the contrived threat of environmental armageddon, children have been turned against their own parents in the service of a new gaia religion.

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.,” they wrote in a report entitled “The First Global Revolution”.

“Our children are on the front lines of the warming hysteria, a place where “experts” from Al Gore to the president leave no room for dissent or even the slightest skepticism, despite claims that are no more provable than the Earth is flat.,” says Peyser.

A newly uncovered document sheds some light on the genesis of how such brainwashing found its way into our schools.

A strategy paper for the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), the world’s would-be environmental watchdog, reveals how the global elite in charge of the green takeover resolved that, “Environmentalism should be regarded on the same level with religion “as the only compelling, value-based narrative available to humanity,” according to a Fox News report.

This approach follows a similar tack to the new methods adopted by Al Gore, who in his recent presentations has delivered his message as a kind of religious sermon, acknowledging, “Simply laying out the facts won’t work.”

The UN planning paper outlines a program of implementing a global system of governance based around environmental regulations and laws, stressing the agenda for the “evolutionary nature of strengthening international environmental governance.”

Participants included Janos Pasztor, currently head of the team pushing U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s unprecedented Seal the Deal lobbying campaign to pressure U.N. member governments into signing a new environmental agreement at Copenhagen, Dominic Waughray, currently head of environmental initiatives at the World Economic Forum; and Maria Ivanova, and Bulgarian academic Maria Ivanova, director of the Global Economic Governance Project at the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy.

A core element of the program includes, “an extensive propagandizing role for UNEP that reaches beyond its member governments and traditional environmental institutions to “children and youth”.

“Civil society, including children and youth, and the private sector will be reached through tailor-made outreach products and campaigns,” states the document.

The document discusses recruiting academia to further the power of UNEP, noteworthy in light of the recent climategate scandal where scientists at major universities were caught hiding evidence of global cooling.

As the Swiss paper puts it, UNEP “should pioneer a new style of work. This requires going beyond a narrow interpretation of UNEP’s stakeholders as comprising its member states — or even the world’s governments — and recruiting a far wider community of support, in civil society, the academic world and the private sector.” At the same time the paper warns that these groups need to be “harnessed to the UNEP mission without appearing to make an end-run around the member governments.”

This passage is fairly damning, as the UN is all but admitting that the program does represent an “end-run around member governments,” and that they have to do their best to hide the fact.

The goals enshrined in the document, a counterpart to the globally binding agreement the UN is seeking to achieve in Copenhagen next month, are “certain to remain a UNEP rallying cry long after the Copenhagen meeting is over — and while the other brainstorming ideas that went into the new four-year strategy, not to mention the strategy itself, go into effect,” writes Fox News’ George Russell.

This document represents yet another smoking gun proving that the climate cult movement is all about expanding the power of a dictatorial, unelected global government, diluting powers of nation states, seizing control of the global economy, eviscerating the middle class with a raft of new regulations and laws, and shutting down industry with impossible CO2 reduction mandates, while erecting environmentalism, which is really a thin veil for global fascism, as the new universal religion.

This has nothing to do with saving the earth and, as the climategate scandal has illustrated, nothing to do with the real science – but everything to do with a relatively small clique of globalists running roughshod over humanity itself in pursuit of their malthusian control freak agenda.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/shocking-un ... shing.html

[chek]

One thing that is hidden from the average reader regarding Man Made Global Warming is the sheer scale of the vested interests fighting to neutralise any attempts to regulate the global corporations who would prefer to not be regulated.

With ExxonMobil (only one of the 'Seven Sisters') posting a profit of $40 billion last year, the scale of the global energy market which includes coal and gas in addition to oil is still only hinted at. Legislation to reduce output of CO2 will reduce the scale of those profits, should they choose to not be motivated to invest in new cleaner technology.

The rich remain rich by being organised, and being organised means creating organisations that look after their interests over generations, no matter what governments and politicians come and go.

"Ivanwald", which sits at the end of 24th. Street North in Arlington, Virginia, is known only to its residents and to the members and friends of the organization that sponsors it, a group of believers who refer to themselves as “The Family.”

The Family likes to call itself a "Christian Mafia," but it began 74 years ago as an anti-New Deal coalition of businessmen convinced that organized labor was under the sway of Satan. The Great Depression, they believed, was a punishment from God for what they viewed as FDR's socialism. The Family's goal was the "consecration" of America to God, first through the repeal of New Deal reforms, then through the aggressive expansion of American power during the Cold War.

The Family is, in its own words, an “invisible” association, though its membership has always consisted mostly of public men.
Senators Don Nickles (R., Okla.),
Charles Grassley (R., Iowa),
Pete Domenici (R., N.Mex.),
John Ensign (R., Nev.),
James Inhofe (R., Okla.),
Bill Nelson (D., Fla.), and
Conrad Burns (R., Mont.)
are referred to as “members,” as are
Representatives Jim DeMint (R., S.C.),
Frank Wolf (R., Va.),
Joseph Pitts (R., Pa.),
Zach Wamp (R., Tenn.), and
Bart Stupak (D., Mich.).

Regular prayer groups have met in the Pentagon and at the Department of Defense, and The Family has traditionally fostered strong ties with businessmen in the oil and aerospace industries. The Family maintains a closely guarded database of its associates, but it issues no cards, collects no official dues. Members are asked not to speak about the group or its activities.

During the 1960s The Family forged relationships between the U.S. government and some of the most anti-Communist (and dictatorial) elements within Africa's postcolonial leadership. The Brazilian dictator General Costa e Silva, with Family support, was overseeing regular fellowship groups for Latin American leaders, while, in Indonesia, General Suharto (whose tally of several hundred thousand “Communists” killed marks him as one of the century's most murderous dictators) was presiding over a group of fifty Indonesian legislators.

During the Reagan Administration The Family helped build friendships between the U.S. government and men such as Salvadoran general Carlos Eugenios Vides Casanova, convicted by a Florida jury of the torture of thousands, and Honduran general Gustavo Alvarez Martinez, himself an evangelical minister, who was linked to both the CIA and death squads before his own demise. “We work with power where we can,” The Family's leader, Doug Coe, says, “build new power where we can't.”

At the 1990 National Prayer Breakfast, George H.W. Bush praised Doug Coe for what he described as “quiet diplomacy, I wouldn't say secret diplomacy,” as an “ambassador of faith.” Coe has visited nearly every world capital, often with congressmen at his side, “making friends” and inviting them back to The Family's unofficial headquarters, a mansion (just down the road from Ivanwald) that The Family bought in 1978 with $1.5 million donated by, among others, Tom Phillips, then the C.E.O. of arms manufacturer Raytheon, and Ken Olsen, the founder and president of Digital Equipment Corporation.

A waterfall has been carved into the mansion's broad lawn, from which a bronze bald eagle watches over the Potomac River. The mansion is white and pillared and surrounded by magnolias, and by red trees that do not so much tower above it as whisper. The mansion is named for these trees; it is called The Cedars, and Family members speak of it as a person.

“The Cedars has a heart for the poor,” they like to say. By “poor” they mean not the thousands of literal poor living barely a mile away but rather the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom: the senators, generals, and prime ministers who coast to the end of 24th. Street in Arlington in black limousines and town cars and hulking S.U.V.'s to meet one another, to meet Jesus, to pay homage to the god of The Cedars.

There they forge “relationships” beyond the din of vox populi (the Family's leaders consider democracy a manifestation of ungodly pride) and “throw away religion” in favor of the truths of The Family.
Declaring God's covenant with the Jews broken, the group's core members call themselves “the new chosen.”

Other prominent members include or have included:
John Ashcroft,
Dan Quayle,
James Baker,
Richard Nixon,
Gerald R. Ford,
Strom Thurmond,
John C. Stennis,
Sen. Absalom Robertson, Dixiecrat-Va. – father of televangelist Pat Robertson

They have a very unusual theology in the sense that they think that Christ had one message for an inner circle and then a kind of different message for a sort of slightly more outer circle. And then the rest of us, Christ told us little stories because, frankly, we couldn’t handle the truth. And the core members are those they think are getting the real deal.

In other words, only they, the members of The Family, truly know what is best for the rest of us.

Over in the Congress there's
Joe Pitts, R-Penn.,
Frank Wolf, R-Va.,
Zach Wamp, R-Tenn.,
Robert Aderholt, R-Ala.,
Ander Crenshaw, R-Fla., Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan.,
Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.,
Jo Ann Emerson, R-Mo., and
John R. Carter, R-Texas.

Historically, The Family has been strongly Republican, but it includes Democrats, too.
There's Mike McIntyre of North Carolina, for instance, a vocal defender of putting the Ten Commandments in public places,
and Sen. Mark Pryor, the pro-war Arkansas Democrat responsible for scuttling Obama's labor agenda.
Sen. Pryor explained to me the meaning of bipartisanship he'd learned through the Family: "Jesus didn't come to take sides. He came to take over." And by Jesus, The Family means The Family.

One needn't be a Marxist to find fault with The Family's mash-up of New Testament and unfettered capitalism - Adam Smith himself would have recognized that theology as a disingenuous form of self-interest by proxy. Such interests have led the Family into some strange alliances over the years. Seduced by the Indonesian dictator Suharto's militant anti-communism, they described the murder of hundreds of thousands that brought him to power as a "spiritual revolution," and sent delegations of congressmen and oil executives to pray to Jesus with the Muslim leader.

In Africa, they anointed the Somali killer Siad Barre as God's man and sent Sen. Grassley and a defense contractor as emissaries.
Barre described himself as a "Koranic Marxist," but he agreed to pray to Grassley's American Christ in return for American military aid, which he then used to wreak a biblical terror on his nation. It has not yet recovered. More recently, The Family has paid for congressional Christian junkets to bastions of democracy such as Serbia, Sudan, Belarus, Albania, Macedonia and Musharraf's Pakistan.

Then again, The Family's preview of a "new kingdom" - a private club of men protecting one another's secrets - doesn't sound so different from the old kingdom. That's the awful secret behind the closed doors of the C Street House, The Family's authoritarian rhetoric, and even The Family's real mission: business as usual, fortified by faith in more power for the powerful and privilege itself a form of piety.

Marc Morano runs the climate denial website ClimateDepot.com for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a conservative anti-environmentalism think tank. Until spring of 2009, Morano served as communications director for the Republicans on the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Morano commenced work with the committee under Senator James Inhofe, who was majority chairman of the committee until January 2007 and is now minority ranking member. In December 2006 Morano launched a blog on the committee's website that largely promotes the views of climate change skeptics.

Morano is a former journalist with Cybercast News Service (CNS), which is owned by the conservative Media Research Center.
CNS and Morano were the first source in May 2004 of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth claims against John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election and in January 2006 of similar smears against Vietnam war veteran John Murtha.
Morano was previously known as Rush Limbaugh's 'Man in Washington,' as reporter and producer for
the Rush Limbaugh Television Show

One of the oldest public relations trick in the book is called the "echo chamber" and it plays off the idea that if you repeat something often enough it becomes the truth. Senator James Inhofe's political spindoctor Marc Morano knows this technique well and he has been using for years to shotgun blast out misinformation on global warming to right-wing media and bloggers for years.

In turn, these bloggers and media outlets blast out their own rendition and before you know it the misinformation is bouncing around the internet and inboxes all over the world.

So who are 'the echo machine'?
Basically, it is the same climate change denier gang that you'll be familiar with from most of banjoboy and Mr-Bridgers posts and others.
It should be clear to anyone with a double-digit IQ that banjo7/8 is no font of knowledge about anything, but he's the perfect messenger dog for certain interests, as are those below who will be familiar to anyone who has followed this thread:

Bob Carter, James Cook University, Queensland, Australia
John Christy, University of Alabama at Huntsville
David Deming, University of Oklahoma/National Center for Policy Analysis
David Douglass, University of Rochester
Don Easterbrook, Western Washington University

Ian Plimer, Global Warming Policy Foundation
Nigel Lawson, Global Warming Policy Foundation
Vincent Gray, New Zealand Climate Science Coalition/
Natural Resources Stewardship Project
William Gray, Colorado State University (ret.)
Ben Herman, University of Arizona
Craig Idso, co2science.org Arizona State University /
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Roger Pielke, Colorado State University (ret.)
James A. Peden, Extranuclear Laboratories (ret.)
Hans Schreuder, ilovemycarbondioxide.com
Rocky Mountain Research Station
Thomas P. Sheahen, Western Technology, Inc.
Fred Singer, University of Virginia (ret.) /
Science and Environmental Policy Project /
National Center for Policy Analysis
Roy Spencer, University of Alabama at Huntsville /
Marshall Institute /Interfaith Stewardship Alliance
Philip Stott, University of London (ret.)
Willie Wei-Hock Soon, Fraser Institute/Science and Public Policy Institute
Brian Valentine, Department of Energy
Sallie Baliunas, Heartland Institute/ Competitive Enterprise Institute

Michael Asher, dailytech.com
Joseph Bast, globalwarmingheartland.org/ Heartland Institute
Edward John Craig, planetgore.nationalreview.com/ National Review
Dan Gainor, newsbusters.org/ Media Research Center
Barry Hearn, junkscience.com
Steven Milloy,junkscience.com/ Competitive Enterprise Institute
Tom Nelson, tomnelson.blogspot.com
Lubos Motl, motls.blogspot.com/ Harvard University (ret.)
Roger Pielke, Jr. sciencepolicy.colorado.edu University of Colorado
Jon Jay Ray, jonjayray.blogspot.com
Gabriel Rychert, co2sceptics.com
Marc Sheppard, opinioneditorials.com/ Frontiers of Freedom
Noel Sheppard, newsbusters.org/ Media Research Center
Matthew Sheffield, newsbusters.org/ Media Research Center
Anthony Watts, wattsupwiththat.com/ surfacestations.org
Steve McIntyre, climateaudit.com

Dennis Avery, hudson.org/ Hudson Institute
Mike Burita, accf.org/ American Council for Capital Formation
Terry Dunleavy, climatescience.org.nz/ N Z Climate Science Coalition
Robert Ferguson, Science and Public Policy Institute
Tom Harris, International Climate Science Coalition
Christopher Monckton, Science and Public Policy Institute
Craig Rucker, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
James Taylor, Heartland Institute

William M. Briggs, wmbriggs.com statistician
Richard S. Courtney, CoalTrans International (ret.)
Joseph D’Aleo, icecap.us Weather Channel (ret.)
Art Horn, theartofweather.com weatherman (ret.)
George E. Smith, Monsanto, Hewlett Packard (ret.)
James Spann, jamesspann.com weatherman, ABC 33/40
Herb Stevens, weatherman (ret.)

These are the main people Alex Jones Inc. recommends ("Senator Inhofe, one of our better Senators") and who are behind the long term corporate-friendly campaign to obfuscate the response to mitigate Global Warming with a storm of spurious and misleading information reinforcing the opinionated ignorance of the ignorant.

They're currently spinning what the uninformed think they know the UEA emails mean. "Don't trust the scientists, trust the Corporations" is the implicit message being sold to the sheep. They are also behind almost every pseudo-science article you've ever read claiming AGW doesn't exist.
I say almost every, because there are also independent cranks, contrarians and wingnuts like Nils Axel Morner who will also happily join in

Alex Jones Inc.'s speciality is in whipping up his anti-intellectual band of wingnuts against an imaginary New World Order whose formation doesn't stand up to the merest scrutiny, while the real New World Order
(post-USSR, US Primacy) continues with its business as usual.

With all the help The Family and its tentacles can bring to bear.

sources:
www.harpers.org/archive/2003/03/0079525
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Family ... anization)
Terri Gross interview with Jeff Sharlet, author of “The Family: Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power,”
http://factnet.org/?p=566
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/07/21/c_street/
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/ ... no-jokers/
http://www.desmogblog.com/marc-moranos- ... ho-machine

[Mr-Bridger]

When scientists behave like bullies
Written by Debra J. Saunders, San Francisco Chronicle
Tuesday, December 01 2009 08:35
Nelson_Muntz
When bullies behave badly.
This just in from the Times of London: After the leak of highly embarrassing e-mail messages from the University of East Anglia's influential Climatic Research Unit, CRU has been forced to admit that it dumped "the original raw" climate data used to bolster the case for human-caused global warming, while retaining only the "value-added" - read: massaged - data.

In short, the CRU dumped the scientific data, but archived information that supports its conclusions. "It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years," wrote Times environment editor Jonathan Leake.

Of course global warming skeptics see Climategate as vindication. For years, global warming activists have maintained that they alone could claim the mantle of dispassionate science, while skeptics were venal, nutty or both.

The publication of these e-mails puts an end to that happy conceit, as they reveal a small cabal of scientists obsessed with obliterating dissenting scholarship and destroying the reputations of any who stood in their way.

For years, I've read global warming activists cite the work of UC San Diego science historian Naomi Oreskes, who looked at 928 abstracts of peer-reviewed articles from 1993 and 2003 and found, "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position" in favor of man-made global warming.

No surprise, her unbelievable claim was wrong. In a leaked e-mail, CRU Director Phil Jones complained of a 2003 peer-reviewed article that departed from global warming orthodoxy. Jones went so far as to boast, "I will be e-mailing the journal (Climate Research) to tell them I'm having nothing to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," who approved printing the piece.

In 2004, Jones said he would keep two troublesome papers out of a U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report "somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

In another e-mail, Pennsylvania State University environmental sciences Professor Michael Mann proposed considering a boycott of Climate Research. But that's nothing compared with Benjamin D. Santer, a climate scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, who, the Washington Post reported, said he was tempted to beat up skeptic Pat Michaels.

Polls show that Americans are cooling on the notion of man-made global warming. I must credit the bully mentality of activists, whose claims often defy common sense - and at times simple decency.

The defying-common-sense part: They claim that no credible scientist departs from the IPCC orthodoxy. Counter with some names - Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer, William Gray, John Christy, Don Easterbrook, Piers Corbyn, Roy Spencer, Pat Michaels, James O'Brien - and they impugn their scientific credentials.

If they have to redefine peer review, they'll do that, too. And then they ask you to trust them on the dumped CRU data. After all, they're scientists.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 1ASHN5.DTL

[Mr-Bridger]

Germans Tried To Warn Us Of Climate Fraud by Dennis T. Avery, AmericanDaily.com

Monday, November 30th 2009, 5:44 AM EST


CHURCHVILLE, VA - The airwaves are full of the “secret” codes and emails from Britain’s Hadley climate research center. New Zealand is looking at the upward trend in the “official” graph of its recent temperatures - while the country’s raw temperature data show no warming. Now researchers are digging into the Hadley data to find if the rest of the world’s climate data have been similarly “adjusted.“

But Der Speigel, the German news magazine, tried to blow the whistle on this climate fraud more than two years ago. In May of 2007, it published a story titled, “Not the End of the World As We Know It.” The story pointed out that Svente Arrhenius, the Swedish chemist who first posited the Greenhouse, had seen global warming as a good thing, with “better climates” potentially making poor harvests and famine a thing of the past.

Der Spiegel noted how previous cold periods - including the Little Ice Age that began in 1300 - were too cold for grain to mature properly. In Germany, thousands of mountain villages and huge tracts of farmland were abandoned due to the cold.

“When global temperatures plunged unexpectedly again in the 1960s, many meteorologists were quick to warn people about the coming of a new ice age - supposedly triggered by man-made air pollution. Hardly anyone at the time believed that a warming period could pose a threat.”

Article continues below this advert:

“It was not until the rise of the environmental movement in the 1980s that everything suddenly changed,” said the Speigel article. “From then on it was almost a foregone conclusion that global warming could only be perceived as a disaster for the earth’s climate. . .”

The wildlife going extinct? Speigel said, “Additionally, some environmentalists doubt that the large-scale extinction of animals and plants some have predicted will in fact come about. ‘A warmer climate helps promote species diversity,’ says Munich zoologist Josef Reichholf.’”

“According to another persistent greenhouse legend, massive flooding will strike major coastal cities, raising horrific scenarios of New York, London and Shanghai sinking into the tide . . . but it quickly became apparent that the horrific talk of a melting South Pole was nothing but fiction. The average temperature in the Antarctic is -30 degrees Celsius. Humanity cannot possibly burn enough oil and coal to melt this giant block of ice. On the contrary, current climate models suggest that the Antarctic will even increase in mass: Global warming will cause more water to evaporate, and part of the moisture will fall as snow over Antarctic, causing the ice shield to grow.”

Der Speigel even had a follow-up interview the next day with biologist Reichholf, who pointed out that “biodiversity reached its peak at the end of the tertiary age, a few million years ago, when it was much warmer than it is today. The development went in a completely different direction when the ice ages came and temperatures dropped, causing a massive extinction of species, especially in the north.”

Two years ago, Germany was apparently not ready to accept Der Speigel’s answer to the “global warming problem.” None of the world’s other major media quoted the article, or picked up the theme. Today, only Fox News, among the world’s major media, has dared to look at the Hadley Center information as a real news story. Must we wait for the huge new energy taxes to be imposed by the Congress before we take the evidence of climate fraud seriously?

Dennis T. Avery


Comments
Have Your Say

Posted by Stephen Wilde on Nov 30th 2009, 7:21 AM EST
A relatively small number of individuals from varying disciplines got together in an immature area of science and misbehaved. They allowed imagination and personal ambition to supplant scientific judgement and they did not allow proper use of the scientific method to rein back their imaginings.

Due to their influential positions and the lack of a widely understood whole climate mechanism they were able to persuade many others in powerful positions that they had come across a devastating truth.

For a while it all looked plausible as the rise in CO2 levels coincidentally correlated with changing global temperatures. The facts and the science were never properly questioned because they controlled the peer review process and the immaturity of the science meant that adequately informed peer review was unavailable anyway.

They treated the laboriously collated raw data as a personal possession to be manipulated and discarded as suited their purposes.

Then it gradually became clear that temperatures were not changing as expected, that their models started to go awry immediately after every projection commenced and other explanations (especially oceanic) for the observed warming became more plausible. Furthermore the all important correlation evaporated.

The cost (both financial and in terms of a pointless loss of freedom) of the solutions they proposed became clearer in a world already facing a financial meltdown for other reasons.

The uselessness of the proposed measures in the face of natural forcings also became more apparent with it becoming obvious that without substantial technical advances relating to alternative energy sources the targets were wholly unrealistic.

The entire concept is now in the process of falling apart and it is becoming clear that to have proceeded as proposed would have hindered and not helped the undeniably necessary moves towards proper long term solutions for resource depletion, overpopulation and genuine pollution.

The loss of confidence in science generally has become profound and is unlikely to be overcome on a timescale oif less than decades.

The longer the culprits struggle the longer it will take and the worse the consequences will be.


Posted by Mike Davis on Nov 30th 2009, 7:20 PM EST
Stephen:
Part of the current financial problem is the environmental groups and the so called scientists who are and have been proposing drastic actions, restricting new sources of cheap energy and forcing people to rely on wind plus solar which reduces personal worth by rising costs and taxes.
I would actually place the current financial situation on the shoulders of the AGW fear mongers because they are also those who want to control our lives.

original 2007 article :

http://www.spiegel.de/international/ger ... 84,00.html

[Mr-Bridger]

One thing that is hidden from the average reader regarding Man Made Global Warming is the sheer scale of the vested interests fighting to neutralise any attempts to regulate the global corporations who would prefer to not be regulated.

With ExxonMobil (only one of the 'Seven Sisters') posting a profit of $40 billion last year, the scale of the global energy market which includes coal and gas in addition to oil is still only hinted at. Legislation to reduce output of CO2 will reduce the scale of those profits, should they choose to not be motivated to invest in new cleaner technology.

The rich remain rich by being organised, and being organised means creating organisations that look after their interests over generations, no matter what governments and politicians come and go.

"Ivanwald", which sits at the end of 24th. Street North in Arlington, Virginia, is known only to its residents and to the members and friends of the organization that sponsors it, a group of believers who refer to themselves as “The Family.”

The Family likes to call itself a "Christian Mafia," but it began 74 years ago as an anti-New Deal coalition of businessmen convinced that organized labor was under the sway of Satan. The Great Depression, they believed, was a punishment from God for what they viewed as FDR's socialism. The Family's goal was the "consecration" of America to God, first through the repeal of New Deal reforms, then through the aggressive expansion of American power during the Cold War.

The Family is, in its own words, an “invisible” association, though its membership has always consisted mostly of public men.
Senators Don Nickles (R., Okla.),
Charles Grassley (R., Iowa),
Pete Domenici (R., N.Mex.),
John Ensign (R., Nev.),
James Inhofe (R., Okla.),
Bill Nelson (D., Fla.), and
Conrad Burns (R., Mont.)
are referred to as “members,” as are
Representatives Jim DeMint (R., S.C.),
Frank Wolf (R., Va.),
Joseph Pitts (R., Pa.),
Zach Wamp (R., Tenn.), and
Bart Stupak (D., Mich.).

Regular prayer groups have met in the Pentagon and at the Department of Defense, and The Family has traditionally fostered strong ties with businessmen in the oil and aerospace industries. The Family maintains a closely guarded database of its associates, but it issues no cards, collects no official dues. Members are asked not to speak about the group or its activities.

During the 1960s The Family forged relationships between the U.S. government and some of the most anti-Communist (and dictatorial) elements within Africa's postcolonial leadership. The Brazilian dictator General Costa e Silva, with Family support, was overseeing regular fellowship groups for Latin American leaders, while, in Indonesia, General Suharto (whose tally of several hundred thousand “Communists” killed marks him as one of the century's most murderous dictators) was presiding over a group of fifty Indonesian legislators.

During the Reagan Administration The Family helped build friendships between the U.S. government and men such as Salvadoran general Carlos Eugenios Vides Casanova, convicted by a Florida jury of the torture of thousands, and Honduran general Gustavo Alvarez Martinez, himself an evangelical minister, who was linked to both the CIA and death squads before his own demise. “We work with power where we can,” The Family's leader, Doug Coe, says, “build new power where we can't.”

At the 1990 National Prayer Breakfast, George H.W. Bush praised Doug Coe for what he described as “quiet diplomacy, I wouldn't say secret diplomacy,” as an “ambassador of faith.” Coe has visited nearly every world capital, often with congressmen at his side, “making friends” and inviting them back to The Family's unofficial headquarters, a mansion (just down the road from Ivanwald) that The Family bought in 1978 with $1.5 million donated by, among others, Tom Phillips, then the C.E.O. of arms manufacturer Raytheon, and Ken Olsen, the founder and president of Digital Equipment Corporation.

A waterfall has been carved into the mansion's broad lawn, from which a bronze bald eagle watches over the Potomac River. The mansion is white and pillared and surrounded by magnolias, and by red trees that do not so much tower above it as whisper. The mansion is named for these trees; it is called The Cedars, and Family members speak of it as a person.

“The Cedars has a heart for the poor,” they like to say. By “poor” they mean not the thousands of literal poor living barely a mile away but rather the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom: the senators, generals, and prime ministers who coast to the end of 24th. Street in Arlington in black limousines and town cars and hulking S.U.V.'s to meet one another, to meet Jesus, to pay homage to the god of The Cedars.

There they forge “relationships” beyond the din of vox populi (the Family's leaders consider democracy a manifestation of ungodly pride) and “throw away religion” in favor of the truths of The Family.
Declaring God's covenant with the Jews broken, the group's core members call themselves “the new chosen.”

Other prominent members include or have included:
John Ashcroft,
Dan Quayle,
James Baker,
Richard Nixon,
Gerald R. Ford,
Strom Thurmond,
John C. Stennis,
Sen. Absalom Robertson, Dixiecrat-Va. – father of televangelist Pat Robertson

They have a very unusual theology in the sense that they think that Christ had one message for an inner circle and then a kind of different message for a sort of slightly more outer circle. And then the rest of us, Christ told us little stories because, frankly, we couldn’t handle the truth. And the core members are those they think are getting the real deal.

In other words, only they, the members of The Family, truly know what is best for the rest of us.

Over in the Congress there's
Joe Pitts, R-Penn.,
Frank Wolf, R-Va.,
Zach Wamp, R-Tenn.,
Robert Aderholt, R-Ala.,
Ander Crenshaw, R-Fla., Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan.,
Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.,
Jo Ann Emerson, R-Mo., and
John R. Carter, R-Texas.

Historically, The Family has been strongly Republican, but it includes Democrats, too.
There's Mike McIntyre of North Carolina, for instance, a vocal defender of putting the Ten Commandments in public places,
and Sen. Mark Pryor, the pro-war Arkansas Democrat responsible for scuttling Obama's labor agenda.
Sen. Pryor explained to me the meaning of bipartisanship he'd learned through the Family: "Jesus didn't come to take sides. He came to take over." And by Jesus, The Family means The Family.

One needn't be a Marxist to find fault with The Family's mash-up of New Testament and unfettered capitalism - Adam Smith himself would have recognized that theology as a disingenuous form of self-interest by proxy. Such interests have led the Family into some strange alliances over the years. Seduced by the Indonesian dictator Suharto's militant anti-communism, they described the murder of hundreds of thousands that brought him to power as a "spiritual revolution," and sent delegations of congressmen and oil executives to pray to Jesus with the Muslim leader.

In Africa, they anointed the Somali killer Siad Barre as God's man and sent Sen. Grassley and a defense contractor as emissaries.
Barre described himself as a "Koranic Marxist," but he agreed to pray to Grassley's American Christ in return for American military aid, which he then used to wreak a biblical terror on his nation. It has not yet recovered. More recently, The Family has paid for congressional Christian junkets to bastions of democracy such as Serbia, Sudan, Belarus, Albania, Macedonia and Musharraf's Pakistan.

Then again, The Family's preview of a "new kingdom" - a private club of men protecting one another's secrets - doesn't sound so different from the old kingdom. That's the awful secret behind the closed doors of the C Street House, The Family's authoritarian rhetoric, and even The Family's real mission: business as usual, fortified by faith in more power for the powerful and privilege itself a form of piety.

Marc Morano runs the climate denial website ClimateDepot.com for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a conservative anti-environmentalism think tank. Until spring of 2009, Morano served as communications director for the Republicans on the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Morano commenced work with the committee under Senator James Inhofe, who was majority chairman of the committee until January 2007 and is now minority ranking member. In December 2006 Morano launched a blog on the committee's website that largely promotes the views of climate change skeptics.

Morano is a former journalist with Cybercast News Service (CNS), which is owned by the conservative Media Research Center.
CNS and Morano were the first source in May 2004 of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth claims against John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election and in January 2006 of similar smears against Vietnam war veteran John Murtha.
Morano was previously known as Rush Limbaugh's 'Man in Washington,' as reporter and producer for
the Rush Limbaugh Television Show

One of the oldest public relations trick in the book is called the "echo chamber" and it plays off the idea that if you repeat something often enough it becomes the truth. Senator James Inhofe's political spindoctor Marc Morano knows this technique well and he has been using for years to shotgun blast out misinformation on global warming to right-wing media and bloggers for years.

In turn, these bloggers and media outlets blast out their own rendition and before you know it the misinformation is bouncing around the internet and inboxes all over the world.

So who are 'the echo machine'?
Basically, it is the same climate change denier gang that you'll be familiar with from most of banjoboy and Mr-Bridgers posts and others.
It should be clear to anyone with a double-digit IQ that banjo7/8 is no font of knowledge about anything, but he's the perfect messenger dog for certain interests, as are those below who will be familiar to anyone who has followed this thread:

Bob Carter, James Cook University, Queensland, Australia
John Christy, University of Alabama at Huntsville
David Deming, University of Oklahoma/National Center for Policy Analysis
David Douglass, University of Rochester
Don Easterbrook, Western Washington University

Ian Plimer, Global Warming Policy Foundation
Nigel Lawson, Global Warming Policy Foundation
Vincent Gray, New Zealand Climate Science Coalition/
Natural Resources Stewardship Project
William Gray, Colorado State University (ret.)
Ben Herman, University of Arizona
Craig Idso, co2science.org Arizona State University /
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Roger Pielke, Colorado State University (ret.)
James A. Peden, Extranuclear Laboratories (ret.)
Hans Schreuder, ilovemycarbondioxide.com
Rocky Mountain Research Station
Thomas P. Sheahen, Western Technology, Inc.
Fred Singer, University of Virginia (ret.) /
Science and Environmental Policy Project /
National Center for Policy Analysis
Roy Spencer, University of Alabama at Huntsville /
Marshall Institute /Interfaith Stewardship Alliance
Philip Stott, University of London (ret.)
Willie Wei-Hock Soon, Fraser Institute/Science and Public Policy Institute
Brian Valentine, Department of Energy
Sallie Baliunas, Heartland Institute/ Competitive Enterprise Institute

Michael Asher, dailytech.com
Joseph Bast, globalwarmingheartland.org/ Heartland Institute
Edward John Craig, planetgore.nationalreview.com/ National Review
Dan Gainor, newsbusters.org/ Media Research Center
Barry Hearn, junkscience.com
Steven Milloy,junkscience.com/ Competitive Enterprise Institute
Tom Nelson, tomnelson.blogspot.com
Lubos Motl, motls.blogspot.com/ Harvard University (ret.)
Roger Pielke, Jr. sciencepolicy.colorado.edu University of Colorado
Jon Jay Ray, jonjayray.blogspot.com
Gabriel Rychert, co2sceptics.com
Marc Sheppard, opinioneditorials.com/ Frontiers of Freedom
Noel Sheppard, newsbusters.org/ Media Research Center
Matthew Sheffield, newsbusters.org/ Media Research Center
Anthony Watts, wattsupwiththat.com/ surfacestations.org
Steve McIntyre, climateaudit.com

Dennis Avery, hudson.org/ Hudson Institute
Mike Burita, accf.org/ American Council for Capital Formation
Terry Dunleavy, climatescience.org.nz/ N Z Climate Science Coalition
Robert Ferguson, Science and Public Policy Institute
Tom Harris, International Climate Science Coalition
Christopher Monckton, Science and Public Policy Institute
Craig Rucker, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
James Taylor, Heartland Institute

William M. Briggs, wmbriggs.com statistician
Richard S. Courtney, CoalTrans International (ret.)
Joseph D’Aleo, icecap.us Weather Channel (ret.)
Art Horn, theartofweather.com weatherman (ret.)
George E. Smith, Monsanto, Hewlett Packard (ret.)
James Spann, jamesspann.com weatherman, ABC 33/40
Herb Stevens, weatherman (ret.)

These are the main people Alex Jones Inc. recommends ("Senator Inhofe, one of our better Senators") and who are behind the long term corporate-friendly campaign to obfuscate the response to mitigate Global Warming with a storm of spurious and misleading information reinforcing the opinionated ignorance of the ignorant.

They're currently spinning what the uninformed think they know the UEA emails mean. "Don't trust the scientists, trust the Corporations" is the implicit message being sold to the sheep. They are also behind almost every pseudo-science article you've ever read claiming AGW doesn't exist.
I say almost every, because there are also independent cranks, contrarians and wingnuts like Nils Axel Morner who will also happily join in

Alex Jones Inc.'s speciality is in whipping up his anti-intellectual band of wingnuts against an imaginary New World Order whose formation doesn't stand up to the merest scrutiny, while the real New World Order
(post-USSR, US Primacy) continues with its business as usual.

With all the help The Family and its tentacles can bring to bear.

sources:
www.harpers.org/archive/2003/03/0079525
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Family ... anization)
Terri Gross interview with Jeff Sharlet, author of “The Family: Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power,”
http://factnet.org/?p=566
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/07/21/c_street/
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/ ... no-jokers/
http://www.desmogblog.com/marc-moranos- ... ho-machine

Im disappointed Chek, i thought you were going to comeback with scientfic proof that man is cause so we could close this thread, but as usual just another ad hominem attack all the people are part of a secret group just like the Club of Rome. I suppose it is now hard to prove the science seeing as the data is now tainted

[chek]

Im disappointed Chek, i thought you were going to comeback with scientfic proof that man is cause so we could close this thread, but as usual just another ad hominem attack all the people are part of a secret group just like the Club of Rome. I suppose it is now hard to prove the science seeing as the data is now tainted

The data isn't tainted Mr-B, that's just the spin you've been fed, which you swallow all too easily because you refuse to read up on primary sources.

As in your last piece of innuendo cut'n'paste, the proof of the integrity of the data is that it agrees with other sources - right down to there being few land stations in the Arctic and Antarctic.

Roger Pielke (the source for the Times story) doesn't explain that vital bit of substantiation, does he? He just winds up the wingnuts knowing they won't check just as The Family want him to do. Science be damned.

I'd also be very interested to hear of any organisations that haven't dumped their paper and pre-PC records since digitising them. There was a famous case where Switzerland's Sulzer Engineering Corporation dumped their paper records when they went digital, and instead of ending up in the shredder, they ended up being used to produce Israel's first indigenous design of jet fighter, the Mirage based Kfir.
So innuendo, insinuation, spin and outright lies are what you'll get from your Family members and their network.

The only thing scientifically proved is that you don't understand the meaning of ad hominem attack.

The Family is a real organisation with the means to accomplish things, as we are seeing played out in this very forum on this topic by our resident repeater.

The only guard against corporate disinfo is to be well informed yourself.
Which you already know, but strangely refuse to do anything about.
If your idea of being well informed is banjo7/8 and his like, well then, we live on different planets.

[item8]

"Don't trust the scientists, trust the Corporations" is the implicit message being sold to the sheep.

Wrong. A typical non-sequitor from the masters of spin otherwise known as liars. The message being urged is "Don't trust the scientists". Full stop. Don't be sheep. Think for yourselves. Look at all the evidence not just what the mainstream media are feeding you because they are feeding you bs. It is the climate liars who rely on people being sheep and so far it has worked for them but the truth is getting out. The scientists in favour of Man Made Climate Change are lying and distorting the data. People were not "sheep" - they trusted the scientists just as they trusted governments. They are now losing that trust which had been given them by "sheep". It is over. Now for the prosecution of the fraudsters who have shovelled billions away from worthy projects to line their pockets with this gigantic scam, and killed huge numbers in the process by diverting land away from agriculture to biofuel crops causing food prices to soar worldwide. All because of their deceit and lies. They HAVE to be punished.

[item8]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNrWMhcq89A&[/youtube]

[item8]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvcuylMrkXk&[/youtube]

[chek]

"Don't trust the scientists, trust the Corporations" is the implicit message being sold to the sheep.

Wrong. A typical non-sequitor from the masters of spin otherwise known as liars. The message being urged is "Don't trust the scientists". Full stop. Don't be sheep. Think for yourselves. Look at all the evidence not just what the mainstream media are feeding you because they are feeding you bs. It is the climate liars who rely on people being sheep and so far it has worked for them but the truth is getting out. The scientists in favour of Man Made Climate Change are lying and distorting the data. People were not "sheep" - they trusted the scientists just as they trusted governments. They are now losing that trust which had been given them by "sheep". It is over. Now for the prosecution of the fraudsters who have shovelled billions away from worthy projects to line their pockets with this gigantic scam, and killed huge numbers in the process by diverting land away from agriculture to biofuel crops causing food prices to soar worldwide. All because of their deceit and lies. They HAVE to be punished.

The thing is banjoboy, I can't imagine anyone who might think that you thought of all of this thread for yourself.

And if you had done, you'd be able to reason it, which you've made abundantly clear that you can't from your numerous foot-in-mouth episodes.

And yet again you mouth accusations with no substance and a stream of ill-thought out nonsense you vaguely remember reading somewhere.

No, you're not a sheep, but I'm sure all that wool will keep you warm this winter. Because we still get winter despite global warming, though I'm pretty sure you don't understand why.

[item8]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... cal-scalp/

The first of many!!!

Climategate claims its first big political scalp

By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: December 1st, 2009

Australian conservatives have shown the way by dumping the party leader who was in favour of massive carbon taxes and replacing him with one who stated last month that AGW is “nonsense.”

This makes Malcolm Turnbull, the suddenly-ex-leader of Australia’s Liberal party, the first major political victim of the Climategate furore. And his replacement Tony Abbott, the first politician to reap the benefits of the world’s growing scepticism towards ManBearPig. Of the three candidates, he was the only one committed to delaying the Australian government’s proposed Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).

The trouble began last week when Australia’s opposition Liberal party began haemorrhaging frontbenchers, all of them preferring to lose their jobs than be railroaded by their leader into voting with the Government on Kevin Rudd’s new carbon tax.

Aussie blog hero Andrew Bolt has the blow-by-blow details. Particularly stirring is his description of how the Liberals’ newly elected leader Abbott – the Mad Monk as the libtard MSM is already calling him – takes the floor and tells like it is about the ETS (Australia’s equivalent to Cap And Trade).

Already the lines are potent – real fighting words from the Liberals at last: Rudd’s great green tax “is really an energy taxation scheme.” In fact, it is “a $120 billion tax on the Australian public, and that is just for starters.” Power prices will go up, for instance. “We just can’t wave that through the Parliament.”

To the public, Rudd’s scheme is “a great big tax to create a great big slush fund… run by a giant bureaucracy”. Already Rudd has overseen “a waste of money … worse than Whitlam”.

Too bloody right mate! (As they say in Australia where “bloody” isn’t a swear word s0 I’m allowed to use it as much as I like.)

Further useful background comes from Watts Up With That, with quotes from Abbott’s memoir Battlelines. Here is what he has to say about carbon taxes:

“Without binding universal arrangements, any effort by Australia (on emissions trading) could turn out to be a futile gesture, damaging local industry but making no appreciable dent in global emissions…. Another big problem with any Australian emissions reduction scheme is that it would not make a material difference to atmospheric carbon concentrations unless the big international polluters had similar schemes. Australia accounts for about 1 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions. At recent rates of growth, China’s increase in emissions in about a year could match Australia’s entire carbon dioxide output. Without binding universal arrangements, any effort by Australia could turn out to be a futile gesture, damaging local industry but making no appreciable dent in global emissions.”

And here he is on climate alarmists:

“It’s hard to take climate alarmists all that seriously, though, when they’re as ferociously against the one proven technology that could reduce electricity emissions to zero, nuclear power, as they are in favour of urgent reduction in emissions. For many, reducing emissions is a means to achieving a political objective they could not otherwise gain.”

Sounds a very sensible fellow. We can only hope that other leaders of conservative opposition parties – not naming any names – are listening to him closely.

Update: Australians have been counting the bitter cost of their failure to implement Kyoto, according to Terry McCrann in Australia’s Herald Sun. Here he ruminates on the miseries they have suffered by not being more eco-friendly:

A reader with a droll sense of humour has come up with an inspired way to achieve the same environmental effect as Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull’s Emissions Trading Scheme, but without the cost.

Simple, a National Apology on Climate Change. Same effect on global emissions as an ETS, but with zero cost.

More humour came less intentionally from an online commentator who set out to detail “What ignoring Kyoto has cost us”.

Two things it appears. Living in smaller houses.

Damn, if only we’d adopted Kyoto we could have been living in British-style shoe-boxes. Sorry, ‘cosy’ cat-friendly accommodations. Cat-friendly? Well, you can’t swing …

Secondly, not being serious about Kyoto has condemned us to cheap electricity prices. At least 50 per cent below the rest of the world.

If we’d gone for wind farms, nuclear, solar, etc, we could have had more expensive power over the past dozen or more years.

[item8]

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-wo ... -k375.html

Australian politician torpedoes carbon cut plans
TALEK HARRIS
December 1, 2009 - 3:04PM

A colourful climate-change sceptic seized control of Australia's opposition on Tuesday, vowing to kill carbon trading legislation ahead of key UN talks in a step which could trigger snap polls.

Right-wing maverick Tony Abbott ousted Liberal Party leader Malcolm Turnbull by just one vote, 42-41, in a shock backroom result that should doom marathon attempts to pass emissions laws.

A second defeat of the government bill -- aiming to cut carbon pollution by between five and 25 percent of 2000 levels by 2020 -- would give the government powers to call an early election.

"We will oppose the legislation in the Senate -- that is the right thing to do," Abbott told reporters, adding that he was "not frightened of an election on this issue".

Abbott's victory comes after Turnbull sparked a party revolt by supporting the government's emissions trading legislation, which is strongly opposed by the industry and agriculture lobbies.

The 52-year-old Abbott, a super-fit ex-trainee priest who recently posed for the cameras in his swimming trunks, sought to brush off earlier comments that climate-change science was "nonsense" as "a bit of hyperbole".

"I think climate change is real," Abbot said, prompting laughter at his press conference.

"I think man does make a contribution. There's an argument as to how great that contribution is, and second, what should be done about it.

"The last thing we should be doing is rushing through a great big new tax just so (prime minister) Kevin Rudd can take a trophy to Copenhagen," he added.

Failure to pass the cuts ahead of the UN summit would be deeply embarrassing for Labor leader Rudd, who discussed climate change with US President Barack Obama on Monday.

"A failure to vote, or shall I say a vote to delay the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, is a vote to deny the climate-change science," he told reporters in Washington.

Abbott said the opposition would seek to stall the legislation by deferring it to a Senate committee, or otherwise he vowed to defeat it this week in the upper house, where neither side holds a majority.

"Many millions of Australians are concerned that the Rudd government's emissions trading scheme looks like a great big tax, to create a great big slush fund," he said.

The bills' defeat would give Rudd the power to call Australia's first "double dissolution" election since 1987, although the prime minister has played down the prospect.

Rudd has sought to place Australia, the developed world's worst per capita polluter, at the centre of the international climate debate despite its accounting for just 1.5 percent of global emissions.

The centre-left leader campaigned on a strong environmental platform during 2007 polls and ratified the Kyoto Protocol shortly after taking office.

He has been asked to be a "friend of the chair", a deal broker role, at the Copenhagen talks which aim to craft a new pact for curbing the gases that drive global warming.

© 2009 AFP
This story is sourced direct from an overseas news agency as an additional service to readers. Spelling follows North American usage, along with foreign currency and measurement units.

[item8]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... ign=co2hog

Brit Hume: ClimateGate Suggests Global Warming May Be A Fraud
By Noel Sheppard, November 30, 2009 - 22:53 ET

Fox News's Brit Hume Monday said the growing ClimateGate scandal suggests manmade global warming may be a fraud.

As NewsBusters has been reporting since e-mail messages from the British Climatic Research Unit were first revealed ten days ago, the only television news network that has been regularly informing viewers about this matter has been the Fox News Channel.

On Monday, Fox's "Special Report" continued this trend, and brought Hume on to offer his thoughts (video embedded below the fold with transcript, h/t Story Balloon):

BRET BAIER, HOST: Well, let's get some thoughts now from senior political analyst Brit Hume on the scandal some are calling ClimateGate.

Good evening, Brit.

BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Hi, Bret. As you heard Wendell Goler's report, a large collection of e-mails exchanged among weather researchers at the University of East Anglia in England have gotten out and caused a scandal. The reason that university's Climate Research Unit matters is that it has been heavily relied upon by the U.N. in reaching its alarmist conclusions about the threat of global warming. The reason it's a scandal is that the e-mails vividly portray leading scientists there scheming to suppress or discredit data and analysis contrary to their dire predictions.

The whole idea that the earth is warming dangerously and that man, by burning carbon fuels is the cause, rests on computerized projections of future temperatures based on vast amounts of previously observed climate data. But there's a huge problem.

There has been no apparent increase in global temperatures over the past 11 years, and the computerized climate models failed to predict this and the global warming alarmists can't explain it. The obvious conclusion would be that there's something wrong with the computer models.

Now it has come out that the original raw data used to create these models has been destroyed or otherwise disposed of. The response of the alarmists to these revelations has been that the e-mails were taken out of context and that the destruction of all that raw data was done for space reasons. There's a one-word answer to all of that -- Please. Bret.

BAIER: Brit, do you think that these revelations have the potential to slow or even stop the push for action on climate change?

HUME: Well, the momentum for that was already declining, because global warming, climate change has been dropping lower and lower in people's list of priorities for a long time now, and doubts about whether man is causing it and about the whole theory of it have been rising. So this can only further that and only add to the sense that this is not a politically urgent matter, and that perhaps it may all even be a fraud.

BAIER: All right, Brit. Thanks.

HUME: You bet.

In the end, if we had an honest news media rather than the advocates so prevalent on television and in print, such sentiments concerning this scandal would be quite commonplace.

Of course, the same would be true if climate change was a conservative agenda, and the Republicans controlled the White House and Congress.

Alas, no matter how you slice it, integrity in journalism is just as lacking as it is within the community of scientists advancing the global warming myth.

How sad for all of us.

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.