Planning to Beat Climate Change

Obviously the news that 'climate change', nee global warming, is a hoax cooked up by the IPCC, governmental bureaucrats,environmentalists and a cabal of so-called scientists that has been exposed by the release of email exchanges and files from the UK CRU. Of course such news is not reported by the GE owned NBC or any other news media of the so called MSM. The Wall Street Journal is covering the the story as is the New York Times in its Dotearth blog in a very defensive mode. The head of the CRU has stepped down as an investigation gets underway. It is reported that Penn State is opening an investigation of Professor Michael Mann, author of the now debunked 'hockey stick' chart.
You can go to powerline blog, the group that exposed Dan Rather's hoax attempt to destroy President Bush, or put 'global warming hoax' into any search engine, you will hit the mother load of information.

I would stress a return to ole' fashioned science, where actions lead to predictable results based on substudies.

After reading through a few of the e'mails, it becomes obvious what we have is speculative theories by a handful of fanatical academics in competition with each other to stretch consequences to a level that excites the mass media to levels of mass action....and they succeeded beyond anyone's expectations!

'Cherry picking' data to make the 'hockey stick' illustrates the dangers of not allowing replication of ones findings and hiding full data sets from skeptical inquiry.

Compounding the entire mess, are the growing numbers of Climate Engineers with their Walter Mitty fantasies of restoring a climate order to the world that resembled something from their childhood.

So if this author is going to slather on 'cures' , the least he can do is accurately predict the results....and when they don't occur or paradoxically go the other way, i.e. New England's cooling of the past several years, Canada's 'edge to edge' snow cover, Zero hurricanes from a prediction of 8+, etc. then quietly admit you really don't know what you're talking about and made up predictions of global climate catastrophe for either a Hollywood disaster movie script or mass media fodder.....and be sure to include a photoshopped polar bear on an ice flow...they love that!

Why did you two even come to this site? Do you spend your days looking for climate change sites to troll? Are you so indoctrinated by Fox (cos *they* don't have an agenda!) that you really can't stop yourselves from spewing out the same boring, disproven comments?

The emails and files that were *stolen* from the UEA do not prove that ACC is a hoax or a myth - they merely (the ones that do actually talk about climate data and not, say, lunch) discuss the need to present data in a way which will be palatable and understandable for the general populace - which you have both proved is a LOT dumber than many people give it credit for.

I mean, seriously Patrick, the best you can come up with is "search for global warming hoax"?? Shall I search for "Obama birth certificate" while I'm there? Or "WMD"? Any fool can post a bunch of crap on the internet and call it science. What makes it *actual science* is being able to be tested repeatedly by a number of scientists, under the same conditions and producing the same results. That's what *peer reviewed* means.

And Anonymous (surprise) Scientists have been saying for the last 18 months that we are entering a period of global cooling lasting approximately a decade (http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2008/05/decade_break_in_global_warming.html). They have also said that this period may mask the effects of climate change, meaning that when we emerge from that period, the effects will be all the stronger.

You moan about people cherry picking data but then do so yourself. Typical. Scientists haven't been "predicting distaster" they have been putting forward theories based on models based on OBSERVED PHENOMENA. The media, out to sell itself has been predicting disaster based on their inability to understand the science and their desire to influence public opinion.

Kthxbye!

Stolen is a relative term and still not proven. Would you accept a whistleblower fed up with dishonesty, deceit, massaging, correcting data,, destroying raw data so the basis cannot be checked, possibly inventing reporting stations and blackballing scientists who disagree from scientific journals. Read the files not just the emails.

Natasha has got it exactly right: See ABOUT THOSE EMIAILS (http://nenmore.blogspot.com/2009/12/about-those-emails.html)
herman

As previously stated "Read the files not just the emails." The CRU temperature data bases are in such a state that the CRU cannot reproduce their results and have trashed the original datan, so much for "consensus science"
As far back as 1996 the IPCC and a relatively small cabal of scientists in collusion with political bureaucrats and environmentalists were intent on using science to obtain domination of the world's energy usage by damning CO2.
The very first IPCC report which is the basis for the limits set forth in the Kyoto
Accord was politically motivated, not science motivated. The IPCC
ignored the devasting criticism of the its own report by Frederick Seitz, President
Emeritus of Rockefeller University and past President of the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS). Mr Seitz described the IPCC report as "I have never
witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events
that led to this IPCC report"..."If the IPCC is incapable of following its most
basic procedures, it would be best to abandon the entire IPCC process, or at
least that part that is concerned with the scientific evidence on climate change,
and look for more reliable sources of advice to governments on this
important question."(http://www.sepp.org/glwarm/majordeception.html
A Major Deception on Global Warming
by Frederick Seitz Wall Street Journal , June 12, 1996" "
Mr Seitz also cited NAS' own study which states, inter alia, the earth
has been subjected to impressive and abrupt swings in climate during recent
periods covering thousands of years and that mankind's role cannot be assessed
without adequate .... baseline documentation of natural climate variability..

Lack of peer reviewed publications is another excuse used by the AGW supporters to blackball the arguments against climate change, nee global warming, while claiming their writings must be valid as they had been peer reviewed. One only needs to consult the Wegman Commission report on the Mann "hockey stick" curve which concluded, "in our further exploration of the social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction, "we found that at least 43 authors have direct ties to Dr. Mann by virtue of coauthored papers with him. Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus 'independent studies' may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface."
This is the definition of what a peer review process should not be, an old boy network providing scientific cover for work of one of their own that they could not verify or duplicate as the author(s) refuse to provide the information needed for a valid peer review.
Another Captain Renault "shocked" moment to find the experts with close academic ties peer reviewing each others papers or even their own if they were on an IPCC review committee. Since Mr. Mann refused to provide any information on his data, statistical methodology, algorithms how could there be a verifiable peer review of his work at any time prior to Congressional action and even then the Wegman Commission was not given complete access.
For a verifiable peer review the reviewers must be qualified, have no business, personal, academic or other ties/relationships with the author(s) and have available all data and information required to verify the findings and to insure that the results are repeatable by others or to reject them.
The following is a quote from a review of "Richard Feynman, A Life in Science by John Gribbin and Mary Gribbin" which is even more important today as science takes a leading role in our lives. Check it out at http://www.friesian.com/feynman.htm
"What had gone wrong for Feynman was that he had begun taking too seriously the idea that modern knowledge is a collective enterprise. Just trying to keep up with his field had suppressed his own sources of inspiration, which were in his own solitary questions and examinations. This, indeed, is the fate of most research in most disciplines, to make the smallest, least threatening, possible addition to "current knowledge." Anything more would be presumptuous, anything more might elicit the fatal "Don't you know what so-and-so is doing" from a Peer Reviewer, anything more might invite dismissal as some off-the-wall speculation -- not serious work.

So Feynman "stopped trying to keep up with the scientific literature or compete with other theorists at their own game, and went back to his roots, comparing experiment with theory, making guesses that were all his own..." [p. 186]. Thus he became productive again, as he had been when he had just been working things out for himself, before becoming a famous physicist. ,,,,,,,,
New ideas do not come from committees, and although this dynamic is so well understood as to be part of folk wisdom, researchers in many areas of science or scholarship are so blinded by their own herd mentality, or collectivist ideology, or rent-seeking behavior, that they commonly act, both for themselves and in judgment of others, in denial of it. Of all the "curious" lessons of Richard Feynman's life, this is one of the best."

Beside Fredrick Seitz, now deceased, there are other recognized scientists who dispute the 'consensus science' preached by Gore, Hansen, Mann and the CRU.
To start
-the 650 scientists who issued a strong dissent
to the man made global warming theory in a letter to the recent UN
Climate change conference held in Poland.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11383
http://650list.blogspot.com/

Professor Lindzen of MIT.

-Messrs. McIntyre and McKitrick,

-Khabibullo Abdusamatov and his colleagues at the Russian Academy of
Sciences astronomical observatory

-Astrophysicist Nir Shariv,Hebrew University, Israel,

-Dr. Edward Wegman professor at the Center for Computational Statistics
at George Mason University

-Dr Richard Tol Michael Otto, Professor of Sustainability and Global Change at Hamburg University, and Adjunct Professor Carnegie Mellon University.

-Dr Christopher Landsea, research meteorologist at the Atlantic Oceanic
and Meteorological Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration,

-Duncan Wingham, appointed to a chair in the Department of Space and
Climate Physics in 1996, and to head of the Department of Earth
Sciences in October, 2005.

-Henrik Svensmark director of the Centre for Sun-Climate Research at
the Danish Space Research Institute (DSRI).

-Nigel Weiss, professor emeritus of mathematical astrophysics in the
University of Cambridge,

-Henk Tennekes, Chairman of the august Scientific Advisory Committee of
the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts.

-Dr Paal Brekke,the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (Soho).-

-Dr. Robert Balling, director of the office of climatology, Arizona
State University.

-Dr Tim Ball- environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.

-Professor Fred Singer Professor Emeritus of environmental Science University of Virginia

-The climate professors at Harvard and University of Delaware who
authored "Restructuring Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past
1000 Years: A Reappraisal.

Many do not recognize these scientists as few or none ever receive a mention or a hearing in the"science" mainstream media. The sound of
real science is a deafening silence.
Professor Richard Feynman, a real, deserving Nobel Prize recipient highlighted such unscientific acts as practiced by the cabal of global warming/climate change 'scientists' in his presentation:
CARGO CULT SCIENCE by Richard Feynman
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/cargocul.htm
It should be required reading for all who call themselves scientists and especially science editors.

The world is warmer, get over yourselves and start dealing with it. Even if we aren't the only ones making CO2, we're the ones who have control over our emissions and should reduce as much as possible. Those of you who don't "believe" in global warming (it's not a religion, BTW, so "belief" is a false dicotomy) should think about this: can you afford to be _wrong_ about this? Given the potential to negatively affect your descendents??? The upside of positive change is that even if global warming isn't real (and I dispute this), the changes will benefit our environment by making natural habitats healthier and the air cleaner, and turn around wild population declines on land and in the water.

Al Gore should lose his Oscar as a result of Climategate, two Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences members say. Roger L. Simon and Lionel Chetwynd, two right-wing (who knew?) Academy members, want Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" Oscar rescinded after allegations that British scientists with the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit falsified data to support claims of global warming. Gore's anti-global warming flick won Best Documentary at the 79th Academy Awards .