"Deniers" Proved Right!
Sunday, November 22, 2009 at 09:10PM It was obvious to me when the Anthropogenic Global Warming crowd cried: “debate over!” and, in the same breath, called their critics “deniers,” that AGW was a political movement, not science. After all, scientific methodology tests hypotheses against observable data; rigorous science is not influenced by consensus or conventional wisdom.
Scratch the surface of AGW, and we discover that the IPCC is a political body, formed by the UN to push their Kyoto Protocol.
Scratch the surface, and we find that Al Gore failed Natural Science in College, that he refuses to debate his critics, and that his own personal carbon footprint is scandalously large, despite warnings of pending doom.
Here on the pages of ATW, AGW believers have often rallied their outrage around the idea that I, and other “deniers,” are unable, and unwilling, to adequately address AGW’s “faux science.”
The reason is this: if the fix is in, the fix is in. You can’t logically argue with faked charts, and cooked science books. Once it is apparent that the “fix” is in -- that AGW is a political movement, and not science -- arguing AGW on the basis of “faux science” becomes a waste of time..
Now, in addition to 10 years of inconvenient cooling, we have hacked emails from the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit, exposing in black and white email, some of the blatant fraud behind AGW.
Quel surprise! I, and other much-maligned “deniers,” were right all along!
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (41)
I am a denier. This story is massive and shows the whole thing is a con. The defence barriers are up and the BBC are reporting this from the point of view of the emails being hacked, not that it shows the scientists as being conmen/women.
Aye indeed, the books are cooked, the fix is in and the AGW-ers can take that consensus to an ethical bank.
All that remains is for the apologies to be tallied: AGW-ers, the floor is yours ...
sound of tumbleweed....no apologies yet...
one swallow doesn't make a summer !
The MSM in the UK (with the exception of The Daily Mail) are refusing to report this new information. It is undoubtedly because they and their 'reporters' are complicit in the fraud and there is now a huge cover-up on-going. This cover-up by the MSM is even greater than the money scams, the data cheating and the marginalising and ridiculing of scientists not in agreement with the 'consensus' which were perpetrated by those at the top of the MMGW new religious order.
Note that government disbursed our tax money most generously for these fraudsters to provide them with rigged data to justify increased tax and increased controls over the little people who happen to pay for this scandalous behaviour. This lying shower of sh*t has done irreparable damage to real science and the people must ensure that Jones et al are held to account.
I doubt that the Establishment's political parties will do anything at all about this because, at that level, there really is a consensus.
Well, then how about 10 icy "swallows" and 172 megabytes of hacked data.
To be honest Patty, the whole topic of AGW and climate change and carbon footpints and 'saving the planet' leaves me cold (pardon the pun). I couldn't actually care less about it even if I should. But I do have a disbelieving attitude to the 'absolutes' on both sides of the fence.
Patty
Please stop posting the "10 years of global cooling" lie.
I have posted plenty of links which totally debunk this. Obviously, you can't be bothered to read them, but I will post them again if you ask politely.
Alternatively, please post a credible link which supports this claim.
Colm, there is anly one group of absolutists in the MMGW field, and that group has just been shown to be a bunch of fraudsters. It may well be that case that CO2 causes an increase in global temperature, but it would be of such minor size that there is no detrimental consequence of it. If the warmists were really so concerned about CO2, then they would ensure that mass immigration from the 3rd-world to the developed world ceased because the 'carbon footprint' of a 3rd-worlder increases four-fold when he gets to a civilised country.
Copenhagen should be interesting after these shocking revelations!
(It was obvious things would go wrong for the doom-mongers when Jonah Broon announced "50 days to save the world".
"Just a few weeks ago, Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research added more fuel to the fire with its latest calculations of global average temperatures. According to the Hadley figures, the world grew warmer by 0.07 degrees Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degrees Celsius assumed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And, say the British experts, when their figure is adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Ni�o and La Ni�a, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degrees Celsius -- in other words, a standstill."
And NASA GISS seem to believe something similar as well:
"But a NASA team from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, which does make the kinds of adjustments for the Arctic data that Rahmstorf believes are necessary, arrives at a flat temperature curve for the last five years that is similar to that of their British colleagues."
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html
There you are Peter: a link to Der Spiegel. Maybe not cooling, but it isn't warming either.
Sadly, Peter, I don't believe or trust much of the climate research these days. Linking me to bogus data is a non-starter so don't bother.
The bottom line is that the current cooling trend was not predicted. Conclusion: the observing system is inadequate. Any honest scientist would admit as much.
Climate research has been so politicized that it is no longer credible. Please see the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit's emails that have recently come to light if you'd like to understand my position.
For example, here's an excerpt from a University of East Anglia CLimate Research email copied from Hot Air, also available at "Watts Up" website:
"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.***"
Exactly how does this prove the deniers right? Oh, I forgot, climate research is not believed or trusted by the author of this post, who is troubled by facts so much that she ignores them.
What exactly do they teach in law school?
Cover-up of inconvenient facts = bad science. Resulting in non-facts, not facts.
I'm not ignoring facts; I'm ignoring non-facts.
From the University of East Anglia Cimate Research Center itself:
"Our observing system is inadequate"
game over.
How not to suffer fools glady.
We cannot, and ought not to say that these leaked emails "prove" the "deniers" right, any more than proponents of AGW ought to say that this or that piece of data "proves" their theory right.
What we seem to have here, is a leaked body of evidence which would seem to suggest some level of conspiracy, a desire to find acceptable ways of "pushing forward" a certain agenda, of making it seem credible to the public despite its scientific questionability.
PS, if climate change sceptics are to be labelled "deniers", then by the same implied theological language, what does that make the non-sceptics? - "Worshippers", I would say is the appropriate term.
Patty / mahons
Listen to John Batchelor Show right now on WABC AM Radio ( on at 7on Pacific time on KFI Los Angeles ) on the collusion to supress evidence at East Anglia University that is " Climategate ".
Should be available as a live stream
Ignoring the oft-repeated "global cooling since 1998" lie, it's worth noting waht the leaked emails do NOT contain:
"There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though."
Link here
Peter
That's a well known ruse for handling accusations. Deny everything that you have not been accused of.
Of course this episode does not disprove global warming any more than Richard Dawkins planting fake fossils would disprove evolution. It would simply discredit him as a scientist.
These people are discredited now and I'm surprised that they are still being defended.
For some warmists, this was never about the facts.
Henry and Phantom
See "the great global cooling lie". This has been disproved time after time, but denialists continue to repeat it as if it was a fact.
There are problems with AGW, but "global cooling" is not one of them.
The BBC has said that global temperatures have not gone up in eleven years
Is this incorrect?
Peter
I didn't say anything about Global Cooling.
I've not even heard about global cooling. I have heard about temperature " plateau - ing " from the above and some other sources.
And speculation that cooling may be on the way, perhaps due to reduced sunspot activity, etc.
Henry
I was drawing attention to the lies repeatedly posted by denialists.
Phantom
The year 2005 was about as warm as the record year of 1998.
here are Nasa's temperatures from 1970 to 2008. They show no cooling trend, but no doubt that just proves that Nasa is part of the conspiracy! I've posted this link and others which show the same data several times. But the "global cooling since 1998" lie keeps getting repeated.
Why did the BBC make this claim then?
The link is to a university site, which claims to have received its data from NASA. Is there anything from NASA that says anything similar?
The BBC "claim" was merely that the record warm year 1998 had not been beaten so far, which is correct, though 2005 came very close. As you yourself said, that does not equate to a cooling trend, as the Nasa link shows clearly.
Peter: the point was never the straw man "cooling trend" - the point is that the measurement system is inadequate. Climate sciences are very new.
Climatologists don't know, and never did, what the weather - climate is you prefer - is going to do. Much less why. And they sure as hell can't predict trends over time with any accuracy.
game over.
Patty
The methodology for meauring global annual temperatures is well-understood and has been in place for decades.
It is one thing to argue that AGW exaggerates the effect of CO2 emissions on both past and future temperatures - I share this view to some extent. But it is quite a different thing to argue that black is white with regard to past temperatures. There has been no "ten years of cooling" since 1998.
Peter: You are not a climatologist. Stop pretending knowledge you don't have.
The climatologists that I have quoted above do not agree with your politicized layman's view that the measurement methodologies are adequate.
"Our observing system is inadequate" --- this is what real scientists think. This is a quote from the hacked emails. Deal with that.
Stop posting garbage that global cooling is a "lie" -- you don't know this. And it is a "lie" to imply that you do.
Patty
You do not have to be a climatologist to read temperature records. And because records are not "perfect" does not mean that they are wrong. The link I provided to past temperatures is from NASA.
So stop posting garbage and lies about "global cooling". Please.
Patty
With your repeated "game over" assertions you're just repeating what you accuse others of doing.
"Our observing system is inadequate" --- this is what real scientists think - ie, when the scientists say something that you agree with you believe them.
Neal: "With your repeated "game over" assertions you're just repeating what you accuse others of doing."
The "game" I refer to - the game that is over - is the AGW hoax being perpetuated by the UN, the IPCC, the US Democrats with their Cap and Trade bill, the EU with the carbon taxes etc.
This is a game of grabbing power and money by stirring up fear and panic - under the cover of "science."
Cooking the books is not science. Game over.
Peter: stop slandering and lying yourself.
You don't know squat about climatology - you are just posting links to sites that "prove" your case - and you know it.
Patty
I have read a lot on this subject, unlike you.
But I'll not get into one of your slanging matches by responding further.
Peter, you have no idea what I've read.
You slander me by calling me a "liar" and then expect no response?
Patty
You posted here before that you have read next to nothing on this subject.
"Ten years of cooling since 1998" has been totally discredited, but you persist in posting it. I post evidence to the contrary and you just ignore it and then accuse me of lies and ignorance.
Last word on this from me.
Peter: I believe that I admit that I am not a scientist. Something that I would encourage you to do before calling me a "liar" because I don't sign on to the hoax of AGW.
If you're not an expert, how do you know it's a hoax?
You'd have to be a lot smarter than me to know that a) the theory is not valid, b) that most of its proponents don't believe it themselves.
Check out the thread of this alleged e:mail. If it's true, it shows the MMGW theorists to be plotters and liars.
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1065&filename=1256765544.txt