Climategate - the next chapter

Hi all,

Taking a break from EU bashing has been refreshing this week, despite the worrying revelations about the new EU 'Foreign Minister', and thus the person ultimately responsible for many of the future decisions regarding the security of our new Reich, was treasurer for the CND back in the 80s (when a nuclear deterrant was arguably essential) and indeed liaised with Communist groups in the UK and possibly accepted money from the USSR to fund the CND - that the USSR did so as a measure to weaken NATO is a matter of historical record.

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/11/soviet-stooge.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230097/Revealed-The-CND-past-new-EU-Foreign-Minister-Baroness-Ashton.html

Of course, in the spirit of openess and accountability that permates our glorious Reich, when concerns over this dubious past (for a foreign secretary at least) were raised by UKIP's own Nigel farage, he was slapped down and threatened with disciplinary actions. Democracy in action.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6653340/Baroness-Ashton-questioned-over-CND-and-Soviet-money.html

As my work laptop is now riddled with worms and viruses, I have not been active for a couple of days, so this post will be longish. I am still wading through the links that my mate Joe has sent me explaining the warmist position and trying to absorb his efforts at trying to make me understand how science works with regards theories, peer review etc. I am not sure that the end result will make him happy since the essential core of 'good' science is objective peer review and acceptance, and the core group of warmist science "peers" seems to be an incestuous pool of mutual accredation and agreement, which makes me even less likely to accept AGW as fact. Fascinating stuff though.

But on to the links. Mostly found from the most excellent eureferendum.com site, which has AGW skepticism as its second cause, which is not as fgar fetched as you may think at first since both the EU and the Church of AGW are tied in some very real ways to the same philosophy of internationalism ad transnational progressivism.

Watts Up With That kicks us off with an analysis of the "hide the decline" email and shows how inconvenient data was just deleted. Bit high brow for me, but I think I understood the article. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/26/mcintyre-data-from-the-hide-the-decline/#more-13256

This next link from the Canadian newspaper Financial Post shows how Phil Jones refused to supply his data to another scientist who in good faith requested it to verify his own findings, which contrasted with the CRU and UEA. Since a core element of 'good' science is the sharing of data and openess to empirical testing of your findings and theories, this rings massive alarm bells. The comments to this artcile are also interesting. http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/11/26/skewed-science.aspx

As usual the Aussies show that they plot their own course. James Delingpole tells us how 5 of their front bench opposittion MPs are resigning from the front bench in protest over a CO2 tax. As Delingpole says, Ian Pilmer must be happy at being vindicated. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018003/climategate-five-aussie-mps-lead-the-way-by-resigning-in-disgust-over-carbon-tax/


Predictably the IPCC, the UN's AGW frontmen and its cabal of 'climate experts' (many of whom are sociologists, economists and not climate scientists at all) is standing firm. To be honest, they are right to do so from a certain point of view - the actions of a small group do not necessarily invalidate the entire theory - however, they should at least be honest enough that the revelations do raise questions about the larger 'consensus' influenced by personaged implicated in the recent revelations, especially the AGW luminaries Michael Mann and Phil Jones. http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSGEE5AP1Y5

George Monbiot, perhaps the leading light of media AGW men in the UK does take a slightly more mature and realistic viewpoint, but is also toeing the line regarding the wider science. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-leak-crisis-response


Another Delingpole link here - he looks at the response of the AGW camp in general. Some interesting reading. As usual I am less than overwhelmed by the intergrity of the BBC. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017912/climategate-how-they-all-squirmed/

Here is a German summary of whats going on. I especially like the conclusion of a prominent German Climatologist about how the emails show that the Anglosphere scientists at least are not above manipulating and distorting the peer review process. http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4929149,00.html

Here is one from the CRU at UEA itself. One cry that warmists often make is that skepticism is funded by the fossil fuel industry - and this is to some degree true. A lot of science research aiming to discredit AGW will of course be funded by the industries that would be hurt most if AGW ends up, as it has, being a political and social tool. There is nothing at all immoral in looking after your own - as can be seen here, which is an interesting page showing just how lucrative toeing the religious line when it comes to AGW has been for some. The now infamous Phil Jones for example, who has been involved in work garnering £1.2m funded by those paragons of objectivity when it comes to climate science, British Council, NERC, DEFRA and several EU organisations. Fossil Fuel and Tobacco companies are not the only one to play the game. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/research/grants.htm

Here is another antipodean revelation. New Zealand has long been one of the 'greenest' countries in the world. Now, similar claims of data manipulation and exageration have emerged there too. Fascinating stuff. http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/global_warming_nz2.pdf

And finally for today - shock! horror! A network that is NOT Fox is talking about AGW in a critical fashion. Actually, CBS is here talking about a very sensible move on the part of Republicans in congress in my opinion - the email revelations from the CRU may only represent a small group of climateologuists, but since their work and their models were directly incorporated into reports, statements and various other releases by the IPCC which directly influenced political debate and decisions, it MUST be determined that those decisions are/were based on an open, ethical science without manipulation and obfuscation. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/24/taking_liberties/entry5761180.shtml

In summing up, that last link really hits home with what I think should be the next step. Even though I am a skeptic and unlikely to change in that, I objectively acknowledge that the actions of a small cabal of unethical scientists, even if they do count in their number such people as Michael Mann (who is basically the high prophet of AGW and the power behind realclimate.org), do not inevitably invalidate the work of all 'climate scientists'. Even if, as some skeptics assert, there are less than 100 real voices pushing the whole agenda, the CRU emails still do not make all of them unethical. BUT, it MUST now be the case that all political decisions are reviewed and all resolutions and agreements analysed, because if they are even partially based on 'science' originating or touched by Mann and his crew, they are suspect.