Climate change deniers wallets threatened

37 comments on “Climate change deniers wallets threatened ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Draco T Bastard 1

   28 April 2010 at 7:36 pm

   Honest scientists have been abused, misrepresented and defamed with seemingly no conscience.

   Psychopaths have no conscience.

   The climate change deniers really do need to be sued for as much as possible. Defamation of the scientists is obviously a major issue but they should also be taken before a court for lying and misleading the public. The fines, court costs and defamation awards should be enough to pay for the needed actions to offset climate change.
2. Pascal's bookie 2

   28 April 2010 at 8:25 pm

   Wasn’t Wishart going ahead with some ridiculous defamation claim?
3. nzfp 3

   28 April 2010 at 8:47 pm

   Climate change deniers (CCD) deny Climate Change is a natural phenomena, they deny that the Oceans and the Sun are the greatest influence on the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Climate Change deniers deny that Water vapor is responsible for 95% of Earth’s greenhouse effect gas and that Anthropogenic CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of the Earth’s greenhouse effect. Climate Change deniers deny the possibility of any other methods to promote enironmental responsibility except the aggregation of personal wealth in the form of offset taxes into the hands of the banks, un-elected governing bodies (IPCC, UN, IMF, World Bank) and financial institutions that create and control the carbon derivative trading schemes.

   Climate Change denier Mann – responsible for politicising Scientific debate – is now attempting to criminalise Scientific debate. However in doing so, Mann will need to prove his theory in a court which will require a very public examination of his methods and data. Is Mann up to the task? Hardly!
   • Macro 3.1

     28 April 2010 at 10:18 pm

     “Is Mann up to the task? Hardly!”

     lol!

     Have you read the letter? He is more than ready. Why has the video been taken down?

     “Oceans and the Sun are the greatest influence on the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere”
     And what planet are you on?
   • Ari 3.2

     28 April 2010 at 10:52 pm

     You do realise that despite the quite accurate fact you stated that CO2, methane, and other greenhouse gases contribute a rather small amount to the total temperature of the planet, the rest of that temperature retention basically goes to keeping the earth’s temperature above water’s freezing point, right?

     Even a 2°C permanent average temperature increase* would be a major adjustment for many parts of the climate, and rather costly to accomodate- and that’s looking likely to be the very smallest temperature increase we’re likely to see as a result of AGW.

     Much more likely given current political commitments is a 4°C average temperature rise**, which will most certainly result in increased hurricanes, flooding of low-lying coastal areas, entire pacific island nations becoming refugees, extinctions of certain endangered or highly temperature-dependent species, and elimination or near-elimination of the artic ice shelf. Relatively small changes to a very powerful system can have a huge effect, especially given that large temperature adjustments in the climate tend to have a positive feedback effect- that is, they cascade out of control if they hit a tipping point.

     That’s not even considering the fact that saying the sun is the cause of AGW is like saying that kinetic energy is the cause of a bruise- ANY increase in the planets temperature originates from the sun, the question is whether it’s a significant delta. The answer is that the sort of sunspot activity we would expect if that were the case is noticably declining. Whoops.

     *IIRC, this equates to something along the lines of 400ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere.
     ** 450ppm.
   • Pascal's bookie 3.3

     29 April 2010 at 5:03 am

     Climate Change denier Mann responsible for politicising Scientific debate is now attempting to criminalise Scientific debate. However in doing so, Mann will need to prove his theory in a court which will require a very public examination of his methods and data. Is Mann up to the task? Hardly!

     AGW ‘sceptics’ always moan and cry when it’s pointed out to them that they sound exactly like creationists. This sounds very, very, much like what intelligent design proponents were saying before the Kitzmiller court case. The IDers were going to put Darwin in the dock. They got their wish. He did just fine.
   • Doug 3.4

     29 April 2010 at 8:25 am

     NZFP you would be more convincing if your facts where correct. Water vapour makes up about 65% of the warming effect but can range from around 40% up to 90% depending on the role of clouds and albedo effects. Estimates of the role CO2 range between 30 to 40%.

     Only in the weird alternative dimension of climate science denial can a person know so much and at the same time so little about the global climate that they can with confidence present a figure to three decimal points. Sheesh
     • nzfp 3.4.1

       29 April 2010 at 11:33 am

       Hi Doug,
       With all due respect, did you get your facts from Wikipedia, or did you quote Kiehl and Trenberth of the The National Center for Atmospheric Research which is sponsored by the National Science Foundation. At the risk of cross postiting you can see my response to Anthropogenic Global Warming proponents such as yourself who make this argument here.
       • Doug 3.4.1.1

         29 April 2010 at 1:09 pm

         I got my data from the AR4 which reviews literature more recent than the 1997 Trenberth article.

         Where did you get your figures and how can you be so precise?
     • Alwyn 3.4.2

       29 April 2010 at 4:20 pm

       Actually it is fairer to say that the figure is reported to three digits rather than three decimal places as it is a number less than one.
       Still pushing the accuracy a bit though.
       I was inclined to accept your objections until I see on this blog a claimed level of Atmospheric CO2 to the right of the screen
       Mar 2010 391.06
       Mar 2009 388.77
       Five significant digits no less
       Are we really sure that we know the numbers to this amazing accuracy?
       • Pascal's bookie 3.4.2.1

         29 April 2010 at 4:29 pm

         There’s a difference between measuring the amount/proportion of a gas in the atmosphere, and saying what percentage of an effect is related to that gas.
       • lprent 3.4.2.2

         29 April 2010 at 5:14 pm

         When I was in a uni lab 30 years ago I was measuring groundwater samples to parts per billion for some of the trace. Nice energetic X-rays bouncing off electron shells are great for measurements if you had good computer support. Godknows what they’re using now.

         Instrument calibration was always a bit of a pain, but I gather that the code is a lot better now.
         • nzfp 3.4.2.2.1

           30 April 2010 at 3:34 pm

           When you were “in a uni lab 30 years ago” did your lab reports include your data and methods for reproducing your results? Were your methods and data available to peers for review and reproduction? That’s what it was like for me when I was in a uni lab.
           • lprent 3.4.2.2.1.1

             30 April 2010 at 3:58 pm

             Sure. But when I was dealing with a lot of the raw data that was held on university systems – especially tape, they were held at the source. I referenced them but I didn’t hold them.

             One of the claims that was made against Jones was that he didn’t have all of the original data from weather stations in China. He had a copy that was processed for summary information and then some of it got discarded. The primary source was held in China, which was referenced.

             My point is that the critics are either too damn lazy to go and get that information from the Chinese, or they really weren’t interested in the data at all – more in slagging off someone unjustifiably. I suspect the both.
4. tsmithfield 4

   29 April 2010 at 6:19 am

   Good science is one thing. What I don’t like is that criticism never seems to appear here against those on the other side who keep issuing shrill, politically motivated, doom-saying messages based on bad science. For example, here is a recent study that has overturned previous assumptions about
   livestock emissions. This latest study has overturned some absolutely appalling science that has been swallowed hook line and sinker. Even the authors of the original study admitted they cocked up big time. Especially relevant for NZ, of course, with its high dependence on dairy.

   The original “Livestock’s long shadow” report way overestimated livestock’s contribution to AGW by using a false comparison with fossil fuel use. Livestock emissions were estimated from source whereas fossil fuel emissions were only estimated from direct use resulting in a ridiculous overestimate for livestock.

   Its fine to criticize CCD nutters. How about equal derision of nutters on the alarmist side of the debate as well.
   • Pascal's bookie 4.1

     29 April 2010 at 7:08 am

     leaving aside that this study isn’t about agw per se, as much as it is about working out who is responsible for how much of it…

     There was a study, it had some flaws, flaws were picked up, authors take lumps.

     This is equivalent to CCD blathering about scottish grapes in what way exactly?

     Looks to me like one side is doing science, with all it’s human flaws. Do you have some alternative approach?
5. tsmithfield 5

   29 April 2010 at 7:19 am

   I realize its not about agw per se, PB. However, what it shows is that this research was accepted uncritically at the highest level when it had very obvious flaws. This is a bit of a worry, don’t you think?

   Also, the other reason for raising it is that it must call into question our commitments under the Kyoto protocol. If livestock emissions as a percentage of total emissions, are much lower than previously thought, and we have lots of livestock, does that mean we should now be paying a lot less, or may even be entitled to credits on balance?
   • lprent 5.1

     29 April 2010 at 9:47 am

     Research is never accepted uncritically within science. It is always up for criticism that demonstrates the flaws with better data or better interpretation of the existing data. In this case Mann did a chart with the best known data at the time it was made. That was over a decade ago and was subsequently amended nearly a decade ago in the light of new evidence. So why are the scientifically illiterate still harping on about it?

     The CCD’s seldom do any rigorous work. For instance their frequent crap about adjustments made on raw data to correct for known deficiencies. Discussing it with various CCDs here it has been apparent that they simply don’t understand the issues around calibrating instuments or even that increased height above sea level has a known cooling effect (something that most ancient civilisations have long known).

     I suspect your issue isn’t with the scientists – they will dump or amend work as soon as it can be shown to have flaws. Your issue is with the civilians like politicians, yourself, and CCDs who read research and expect it to be ‘final’. The latter appear to work almost entirely on a boneheaded faith that beggars the imagination in its simplistic stupidity.
6. Pascal's bookie 6

   29 April 2010 at 7:45 am

   “However, what it shows is that this research was accepted uncritically at the highest level when it had very obvious flaws.”

   Plenty of things look obvious in hindsight. Who exactly do you think should have dismissed it? Non researchers? Politicians?

   You claim it had very obvious flaws. Who else picked them up, if anyone? Of those that did pick it up, what are their track records like?

   Fact is, it’s flaws have been picked up. The system works. Systems working is a good thing, rather than a reason to worry.

   You implied an equivalence between this and CCD stuff. Do you stand by that?
7. tsmithfield 7

   29 April 2010 at 8:46 am

   PB “Plenty of things look obvious in hindsight. Who exactly do you think should have dismissed it? Non researchers? Politicians?”

   Lets not beat around the bush PB. This was not some obscure error buried in the statistics. This was so obvious I would have expected an intelligent high school student to have picked it up. Politicians surely have scientific advisers who vet this sort of stuff. The system doesn’t seem to have worked very in this respect considering that it seems to have slipped through the net.

   PB “You implied an equivalence between this and CCD stuff. Do you stand by that?”

   You are proving my point with the tenor of your response. I am all for criticism of poor research. However, your somewhat defensive stance with this research is quite different to what your approach would be with research of an equivalent standard from the dark-side.

   I like to see bad research treated in an equal way. Otherwise we are in danger of poor research being uncritically accepted as has happened here. Being accepted at such a high level as the UN is even worse because it has affected government policies around the world. You must admit it, PB, this research was pretty bad.

   You didn’t answer my question about what effect you think this should have on our Kyoto obligations btw.
8. tsmithfield 8

   29 April 2010 at 9:00 am

   This is not the only example of poor research being accepted uncritically, by the agw side of the debate PB. Here is another example that is more directly related to agw than the last. There are quite a lot more I can point to as well. Do you agree that bad science is bad science regardless of which side of the argument it purports to support?
   • Doug 8.1

     29 April 2010 at 9:12 am

     No I think I can agree that there is bad reporting on climate science especially by the right wing media.

     For more information see
     http://hot-topic.co.nz/amazongate-closes-on-sunday-times-simon-lewis-fights-back/
   • Pascal's bookie 8.2

     29 April 2010 at 9:14 am

     I’m sure you can. These things happen, and they should be and are condemmed and discarded when discovered.

     On the other side, there is little to no reaserch at all, and the same debunked lies are peddled year after year.

     I’m just not seeing the equivalence through all the smoke you are blowing.

     In light of Doug’s comment, will you now condemn yourself for your shocking and obvious error that even a teenager should have foreseen?
9. Pascal's bookie 9

   29 April 2010 at 9:09 am

   Lets not beat around the bush PB.

   Good, let’s not. Are you saying that all research should be peer reviewed by some govt body? That’s what it seems like. If this error was so obvious, where was all the criticism of it? Did everyone miss it? Unless you can point to the critics, then it seems pretty harsh to condemn non specialists for accepting it. What should ahve they done? Should there be another peer review level for the government?

   I don’t know what effect this would/will have on our kyoto obligations. It’s beside the point.

   The point is that our obligations should be determined by the best available science, which will sometimes need correcting. Do you disagree?

   That’s the way the system works. Do you have a better suggestion?

   I agree that equivalent things should be treated the same, and haven’t said otherwise.

   On that point, do you think this is equavalent to the type of research we see from the CCD side, and do they correct themselves in the same way?
10. tsmithfield 10

    29 April 2010 at 9:25 am

    PB, I tend to accept the general thrust of agw arguments now, so you haven’t really got an argument from me on that score.

    Having said that, it is very easy to find examples I have pointed to where very poor or unsubstantiated research is being accepted by the likes of the UN and the IPCC when it sways in favour of agw extremism. However, it is not very easy to find examples of equally poor research being accepted from the other extreme. This suggests to me that these organisations are somewhat agenda and politically driven leading to over-emphasis being given to extremist claims on the agw side.
    • Pascal's bookie 10.1

      29 April 2010 at 9:34 am

      “This suggests to me that these organisations are somewhat agenda and politically driven leading to over-emphasis being given to extremist claims on the agw side.”

      Which is why such progress has been made on the issue I suppose. Govts are uncritically accepting alarmists recomendations and ignoring the sceptics.

      hang on a mo…

      Anway, you asked that we not beat around the bush…

      The point is that our obligations should be determined by the best available science, which will sometimes need correcting. Do you disagree?
11. tsmithfield 11

    29 April 2010 at 9:56 am

    I agree with you that decisions should be made on the basis of best science and that correction is needed from time to time.

    On that basis, I hope the NZ government will correct our obligations under the Kyoto protocol if it is found that they have been calculated in part on the basis of the bad science I pointed to in my first post.
12. Pascal's bookie 12

    29 April 2010 at 10:11 am

    I agree with you that decisions should be made on the basis of best science and that correction is needed from time to time.

    You know what to do then.
    • nzfp 12.1

      29 April 2010 at 12:07 pm

      lprent: “I suspect your issue isn’t with the scientists they will dump or amend work as soon as it can be shown to have flaw”

      You prove my point exactly. Now lets ask Jones for the RAW data and the methods he used for interpreting the data, so we can see the “adjustments made on raw data” – as per the scientific method and scientific peer review. I would like to see “Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline”. If Mann proceeds with his case against the M4GW the legal discovery process will force exposure of data and methods Mann has still not released.
      • lprent 12.1.1

        29 April 2010 at 1:03 pm

        Perhaps you should organise to collect the data when it is generated at the source – the same as all working scientists do. Raw data is typically enormous and requires a lot of storage and processing. The data will be stored with the generating agencies. Why are you (and other CCDs) requesting Chinese weather station raw data from a English university when you can go back to the origional source.

        Basically I suspect because you really don’t give a pigs arse about the data. Processing it would involve work… As far as I can see the CCD people asking for this are simply wanting to freeload on other peoples work. CCDs are a total pack of lazy arseholes who want to be critics that do f*ck all work. You’re like that as well with some of the most lazy quoting that I’ve seen around here….

        For instance the local band of nutters around the CSC who appear to be using the Act party as their personal sockpuppets. Despite being handed the raw data that they requested, they screw up every time that they try to analyse it. Frankly I’m coming the the realization that almost every CCD I’ve talked to over the years are incompetent fools at reading and analyzing data.
        • nzfp 12.1.1.1

          29 April 2010 at 3:31 pm

          “nutters” “pigs arse” “sockpuppets” is how you describe anyone with an opposing view?

          “Climate Change Denier” is a veiled attempt at associating AGW sceptism with holocaust denial – it is disingenuous and disgusting considering the sixty million people who died in WW2.

          When considering his libel case against M4GW, Mann would do well to consider what happened to David Irving when he attempted a libel case against American historian Dr. Deborah Lipsdat.
          • lprent 12.1.1.1.1

            29 April 2010 at 4:00 pm

            I call people as I see them. If you’re too sensitive, then that is your problem.

            I notice you completely ignored the point I was making in favour of an attack on language (for gods sake). You ignored anything substantive in favour of being a useless little nitpicker. So familiar from the CCD scientific illiterates like yourself.

            When are we going to see the various climate change deniers complaining about the ‘raw data’ actually do any work in getting that data themselves from the sources and analysing it?

            As far as I can see the pillocks are just a lazy pack of critics with no particular value. If you want to ‘disprove’ that human generated climate change is underway, then you have to prove it. To do that you have to actually do some scientific work.

            That work has been notable by its absence. Every paper I’ve read from that angle has been done with ‘reviewing’ working scientists work. Basically nitpicking. Typically it has been done by reviewing decade old papers. That includes almost all of the work done by CCD ‘scientists’ who are usually in their dotage (’emeritus’ gives a strong clue) and are probably supplementing their pension. Singer being a good example.

            Could it be that there is simply no basis to your arguments? Seems pretty likely to me.
            • nzfp 12.1.1.1.1.1

              30 April 2010 at 3:16 pm

              “I call people as I see them. If you’re too sensitive, then that is your problem.”

              It’s a reflection of the content of your character, which is your problem not mine.

              “I notice you completely ignored the point I was making”

              Because it is irrelevant. You know as well as I that if your science is unable to stand peer review then the premise must be restated and the hypothesis redefined. Allow me to redefine the “Scientic Method” for you:

              I. The scientific method has four steps

              1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

              2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

              3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

              4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

              Point 4. is paramount, your Jones and Mann were shown by the release of the emails and the Oxburgh three week five page white wash to have gone out of the way to prevent review when they were requested to provide the data and methods to validate the conclusions they drew. I already made this point explicitly clear to you above.

              The IPCC AR4 document has been shown to be full of politicised science [fiction], and alarmist rhetoric, chapter 9 in particular. You will recall that chapter 9 is summarised in the Executive Summary and is the chapter used by the IPCC to build the case for anthropogenic warming. However, “Dr Andrew A. Lacis” of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies had the following comments during the review process of AR4:

              “Anthropogenic warming of the climate is pervasive…”? The quantity that is being measured is temperature (of the surface, atmosphere and ocean). Temperature has no identifying label that would make it possible to identify any given temperature change as being “natural” or “anthropogenic” in its origin. The term “anthropogenic warming” is yet to be properly defined. In any case it is hardly a scientifically credible description to be attached to observational data.
              [Andrew Lacis]

              Recall point 1. of the “Scientic Method”. Anything that falls outside this framework is faux science.

              Lecis had even more scathing comments of the Executive Summary itself as reported in the “Telegraph on February 9th, 2010”. Lecis stated “There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. […] The Executive Summary as it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted.”

              The fact is that the IPCC is a political body tasked with assessing “human-induced climate change, the impacts of human-induced climate change, options for adaptation and mitigation”. The IPCC and their Scientists are funded to find evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), the tenure and grants are dependent on their ability to “prove” AGW and as such the science has been politicised and bastardised. As a result of the bastardisation of the scientific method, our economy is/will be negatively impacted by facist carbon derivative trading schemes.

              Why am I against this

              These facist carbon schemes represent a tax on the products of labour. This tax, like GST and other value added taxes, is disproportional and will be passed onto the middle and lower classes paying the majority (proportional to their income) of the tax – people like the majority of my disenfranchised whanau in South Auckland who live on the bread line. The wealth from the taxes will be accumulated in the banking and financial industry, with the creation of phantom wealth in the form of carbon derivative futures and other exotic financial instrument bubbles. The alternatives – such as the RBNZ funding the sustainable and enironmentally responsible development of our nations infrastructure and industries, tax free without foreign banking either through treasury spending (Ricardo, Mills, Smith) or RBNZ deficit spending (Keynes) are not discussed because they don’t promote carbon trading or carbon derivative bubbles. Also, working scientists who’s research is funded by this political organisation don’t give a “pigs arse” so long as the get their next grant. Does that sound like someone you know lprent?
13. RedLogix 13

    29 April 2010 at 12:54 pm

    Oh dear. You really should have stuck to the economic issues. You’re interesting on them…this mendacious crap is discrediting you and everything else you stand for.

    Now lets ask Jones for the RAW data and the methods he used for interpreting the data,

    It’s been in the public domain for years. The only problem is that the deniers are generally too ignorant to do anything with it themselves.

    I would like to see “Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline’.

    Oh very very dear. This nonsense has been cleared up over and over…. it should have been blindly obvious that the word ‘trick’ that denier central got so hot and bothered about, was being used in the sense of ‘a clever or igenious method’. This point has been clearly and absolutely confirmed by several formal investigations, a summary of them being here.

    The Oxburgh findings are the result of the latest scrutiny of CRU’s research. The first was the original peer review which led to publication in some of the world’s leading international science journals; the second was the Inquiry by the Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee. Taken together, these must represent one of the most searching examinations of any body of scientific research. The veracity of CRU’s research remains intact after this examination.

    It is gratifying to us that the Oxburgh Report points out that CRU has done a public service of great value by carrying out meticulous work on temperature records when it was unfashionable and attracted little scientific interest, and that the Unit has been amongst the leaders in international efforts to determine the overall uncertainty in the derived temperature records. Similarly, the Report emphasises that all of CRU’s published research on the global land-based instrumental temperature record included detailed descriptions of uncertainties and appropriate caveats. We also welcome the confirmation that, although some have accused CRU of trying to mislead, the Unit’s published research emphasises the late 20th Century discrepancy between tree-based proxy reconstructions of temperature and instrumental observations.

    The Report points out where things might have been done better. One is to engage more with professional statisticians in the analysis of data. Another, related, point is that more efficacious statistical techniques might have been employed in some instances (although it was pointed out that different methods may not have produced different results). Specialists in many areas of research acquire and develop the statistical skills pertinent to their own particular data analysis requirements. However, we do see the sense in engaging more fully with the wider statistics community to ensure that the most effective and up-to-date statistical techniques are adopted and will now consider further how best to achieve this.

    Another area for suggested improvement is in the archiving of data and algorithms, and in recording exactly what was done. Although no-one predicted the import of this pioneering research when it started in the mid-1980’s, it is now clear that more effort needs to be put into this activity. CRU, and other parts of the climate science community, are already making improvements in these regards, and the University will continue to ensure that these imperatives are maintained.

    Now I do realise that after calling for an independent investigation, getting one and then getting an outcome they don’t like, the denier idiots will not be at all satisfied. After all unlike the scientists, when the deniers are proven wrong they never acknowledge and correct their mistakes…and for this reason are utterly unable to progress or usefully contribute to the discussion.
    • nzfp 13.1

      29 April 2010 at 3:14 pm

      Thank you for referenceing Ernest Oxburg – a geologist and former
      academic who is the honorary president of the Carbon Capture and
      Storage Association and is involved with the wind-energy
      company Falck Renewable – there are several incorrections and
      logical fallacies in your response which I will respond too below. To
      begin with we should remember that “[t]he Carbon Capture and Storage
      Association exists to represent the interests of its members in
      promoting the Business of Carbon Capture and
      Storage (CCS).”

      You really should have
      stuck to the economic issues. You’re interesting on them…
      Thank you for your honesty, this is however an economic issue. As I
      have stated many times Climate Change deniers (AGW proponents) deny the
      possibility of any other methods to promote enironmental responsibility
      except the aggregation of personal wealth in the form of offset taxes
      into the hands of the banks, un-elected governing bodies (IPCC, UN,
      IMF, World Bank) and financial institutions that create and control the
      carbon derivative trading schemes.

      Guardian 29 September 2009 “Brussels
      targets carbon trading fraud ahead of Copenhagen summit”
      “Last month Revenue & Customs raided 27 businesses and private
      addresses across London in relation to a suspected £38m VAT fraud on
      carbon credits. It has since released nine suspects on bail but the
      investigation is continuing.”

      New York Times December 10, 2009 “Europol:
      $7.4 Billion Lost from Carbon Trading Fraud in Europe”
      “Europol, the European Union’s law enforcement arm against organized
      crime, announced
      on Wednesday that carbon-trading fraud has cost the bloc’s
      governments $7.4 billion in lost tax revenue over the last 18 months.”

      Guardian 11 January 2010 “Three
      Britons charged over €3m carbon-trading ‘carousel fraud'”
      “Pollution permits for businesses were launched in the European Union
      in 2005 in an effort to cut carbon emissions. But the lack of
      harmonised tax regimes across the EU has prevented the creation of an
      orderly market that eliminated fraud.”

      Lets be very clear here – Carbon Tradiing Schemes are “pollution
      Permits” – Permits to Pollute, they are not a means of
      regulating and enforcing environmental responsibility.

      It’s been in the public
      domain for years.
      For your benefit I have bold
      the relevant word. This is an example of the logical fallacy “petitio
      principii” or “begging the question”, in this case you have
      assumed the initial point that the requested information has
      been in the public domain for years

      The Guardian reports “Climate
      scientists contradicted spirit of openness by rejecting information
      requests” “Hacked emails reveal systematic attempts to block
      requests from sceptics – and deep frustration at anti-global warming
      agenda”. The report notes Jones’ comments about sceptics McIntyre and
      McKitrick who “have been after the CRU station data for years.
      If they ever
      hear there is a Freedom
      of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the
      file rather than send to anyone”. In 2007 Jones told his Chinese-American colleague
      Wei-Chyung Wang and Thomas Karl, director of the US
      government’s National Climate Data Centre: “Think I’ve managed to
      persuade UEA to ignore all further FoI requests if the people have
      anything to do with Climate Audit”.

      On Feb. 22, 2007, McIntyre
      sent a FOI request to Phil Jones requesting data for a report for which
      “Jones et al 1990 has been cited in IPCC AR4”. On March 9, 2007, CRU
      responded “Your request for information under the Freedom of
      Information Act 2000 received by us on 22 February 2007 has been
      considered and I am not obliged to supply the information you have
      requested…”

      McIntyre
      also notes “[t]he “IPCC and Briffa were categorically asked by one AR4
      reviewer [Stephen McIntyre] to disclose the divergent data. CRU’s
      Briffa refused, saying only that it would be “inappropriate’ to show
      the data in the graphic”.

      To be fair, even McIntyre
      admits “Yes, the decline had been disclosed in the “peer reviewed
      literature’. Indeed, that was how I became aware of the trick long
      before Climategate and why, as an AR4 peer reviewer, I asked that IPCC
      not use the trick once again in AR4”

      This nonsense has been cleared up over and over .
      In
      a letter to M4GW from an attorney, Mann claims that “Hide the decline’
      defames
      him. This
      analysis considers whether Mann’s assertion is true.

      In light of the analysis in the link above, it should also be noted
      that on 16/12/2009 Russian
      Newspaper RIA Novosti in a report titled “Russia
      affected by Climategate” stated “[…] Over 40% of Russian
      territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some
      other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and
      observations. The data of stations located in areas not listed in the
      Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does
      not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early
      21st century […]”

Links to post

1. Paul Tran: posted on 28 April 2010 at 6:04 am
2. Tweets that mention Climate change deniers wallets threatened « The Standard -- Topsy.com: posted on 30 April 2010 at 2:59 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS