Supply Creates Its Own Demand
Tuesday, December 1, 2009 at 03:24PM If you want to know why scientists at CRU destroyed and manipulated data, and behaved in such a way as to render the scientific peer review process meaningless, you need only follow the money.
“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?”
Will Al Gore, Chief Alarmist/ Snake Oil Salesman/ Master of the AGW Confidence Game/Billionaire ever be publically exposed by the MSM? I don’t think so.
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (24)
There is a good summary of the main scientific difficulties with AGW here
It doesn't disprove the theory, but it points out the main area of doubt.
Peter: AGW is a political movement using science as a cover. AGW is about expanding the reach of the Progressive Internationalist - AGW is a power grab -
Science is a discipline.
Patty
Phil Jones should be sacked and it is a scandal that he is still in post.
But I see you ignored the link as usual. It is from a respectable scientist, who deals with some of the scientific issues around AGW. And there are scientific issues, however much you parrot the "politcial power-grab" line.
But stick to your comfort zone. Your mind is 100% made up on this (as on most things) and I know that absolutely nothing will shake it, so I won't be wasting any more of my time.
Peter,
Please read some information on the HARRY_READ_Me.txt file.
It is damning.
Mike's America has a good post up about it, including a link to the entire file.
Peter, you may also be interested in joining the debate over at Watts Up With That.
Many of your questions will be debated and answered there in the comments.
Troll
I have read a lot about Climategate in the last ten days.
Thanks for the link. I already follow WUPT, among others. The best site for this is here. Each day it posts an article on each side of the debate. It also has dozens of links to other sites.
"It doesn't disprove the theory..."?? If a 'researcher' has to falsify data and processing code in order to support his theory, that in itself must disprove his theory because without such falsification, the the theory fails.
As I have stated elsewhere, these 'researchers' and 'scientists' have discovered that governments (i.e. taxpayers) have deeper pockets than any other source in the world. Note that the money available from this source greatly exceeds that available from the likes of 'big oil'. Follow the money.
Damn! I keep forgetting to sign my name!
That link looks fascinating - holy crap. I will be checking it out, thanks.
Monica
I will add that I agree with Patty - this science has been corrupted by political forces. Do you agree, Peter?
Monica
Peter: As I've explained before, I have no interest in debating the "science" because there is no "science."
Per CRU: the original temperature database has been trashed. The climate models have been manipulated to fit a narrative.
I've actually read enough to know that the science is complicated, and the peer review should be rigorous. But CRU even scuttled the peer review process by intimidation and bullying tactics.
You are not a scientist. Neither am I. You can link, but at best it's a hobby, and not one I care to dally in.
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.
If a penny of that came from the taxpayer, it was gained by deception and academic fraud.
Per CRU: the original temperature database has been trashed.
The original temperature database has not been trashed. The original temperature information was collected from sources external to CRU. These still exist.
Per CRU: the original temperature database has been trashed.
The original temperature database has not been trashed. The original temperature information came from sources external to CRU. They still exist.
If a 'researcher' has to falsify data and processing code in order to support his theory, that in itself must disprove his theory because without such falsification, the the theory fails.
Allan
If you had actually read some details about Climategate you would not post such nonsense.
Monica
I agree the AGW theory has taken a serious hit as some of its main protagonists have been shown up as ruthless propagandists. But it does not follow that the theory itself has been disproved.
The onus is on AGWers to prove the theory, it's not up to others to disprove it.
Not only is the "AGW" theory not proven, but come to think of it, it strikes me as completely unprovable with any current methods and technologies known to man.
If a 'researcher' has to falsify data and processing code in order to support his theory, that in itself must disprove his theory because without such falsification, the the theory fails.
Peter - this is self-evident. If not, then why not?
Moreover, Allan, if a branch of science cannot create working "placebo" models/scenarios in order to eliminate erroneous factors as possible causes of their theory, but instead has to rely solely on computerised mock-ups, using mathematically calculated "best guesses" to mimic the effects of physical constants/variables which are not yet even fully understood, then how on earth can anything be extrapolated or eliminated using such spurious methods?
Hell's teeth, it's not that their conclusions are wrong, it's not even that the results of the experiments have been misinterpreted. We're nowhere near even being able to employ the correct scientific methods in the first place.
Tom
The debate is over. Stop talking. Get in line.
Sorry, Phantom. I am such an infidel, I know.
The onus is on AGWers to prove the theory, it's not up to others to disprove it.
At last a sensible remark from a Rightworlder on AGW!
I don't think you (I mean "the AGW lobby", not "you" Peter) CAN prove the theory, that's the problem. You would need to create a duplicate solar system, with a duplicate Earth, minus the humans, and study it for 10,000 years in order to show that mankind is the factor causing warming. That's what scientists do when they want to prove that factor "x" is causing certain phenomena. They recreate all the other precise conditions, but leave out factor "x" and see if the same thing occurs. They give one group of mice the suspect medicine, and omit it from the diet of the control set.
We cannot do that sort of thing yet. We have only one planet earth to observe. We can't create another one to use as a placebo model. So, I do not see that AGW can be proven at all. Computerised models are too shaky and built upon too little-understood replications of the known data.
Peter, the recent revelations have shown that the pro-AGW group (let's call them the Hockey Team) cannot prove the theory. In fact, their communications and actions (probaby criminal, but certainly anti-scientific) have proven that they cannot prove the theory, hence the manipulations, cheating and conspiracies and actions to silence opponents.
At the very least - the science is not 'settled'. That's the only thing that's for damn sure.
Monica