279 Comments

1. Steve MacDonald:

I read your recent book and was surprised and delighted to find it readable and informative for the scientifically challenged like myself. Thank you for your refreshingly clear and informative contribution to what passes for debate on Climate Change.

Nov 25, 2009 - 1:58 am 2. pibill:

A huge thank you, Sir! This has been bunk from day one. I was born and raised in an area of beautiful lakes and hills long ago covered by glaciers that had advanced then receded gouging out this lovely topography. Maybe, at the most, a couple of Indian fires had created some carbon, but certainly nothing else. The climate changed of it’s own accord, nothing man-caused, and will do so, again and again. What a total load of horse-hockey!

Nov 25, 2009 - 4:14 am 3. Copper Quark:

Well yes, I’m angry. What I’d like to know is how to put the brakes on the whole thing. Congress and the president no longer care what the American people think or desire since they know best. Larger information services, ditto.

Nov 25, 2009 - 4:46 am 4. Jack in Silver spring:

Thank you Dr. Plimer.

Nov 25, 2009 - 5:04 am 5. climate hive:

China executed a dairy farmer and a milk salesman Tuesday for their roles in the sale of contaminated baby formula — severe punishments that Beijing hopes will assuage public anger, reassure importers and put to rest one of the country’s worst food safety crises.

Good thing these Climatologist Frauds are not on a Chinese grant.

Nov 25, 2009 - 5:25 am 6. gjg:

The data has always been manipulated. They have always lumped in the temperature data from the cities in with the rural sites. The cities are warmer due to the urban heat island effect. It is like trying to measure the temperature of the forest with the thermometer next to the bonfire. We have looked at the rural and urban sites in matched pairs in the US. The rural sites are not getting warmer!
Here is a little video about it.

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheseData#p/a/u/1/LcsvaCPYgcI

Look up Global Warming Urban Heat Effect on YouTube.
So simple a 6th grader can understand it.

Nov 25, 2009 - 5:49 am 7. Randy in New Jersey:

Good comments. I’m puzzled and amused by the apologists on “Real Climate” and other sites who say, “See, there was no conspiracy”. If the data was faked, or tweaked, how can we know whether the current warming is “unprecedented”? How can we know, without an accurate historical record, whether the current warming is even a statistically significant departure from normal climatic variation? And now we know the historical record was falsified.

Nov 25, 2009 - 5:49 am 8. Concerned Citizen:

The whole thing turned out to be a complete load of ****. While people rant and rave about how the emails don’t prove anything — they are actually only useful for showing someone’s state of mind in this case, the models are the smoking gun. Here’s a graph that shows the real climate temperature measurements and those conjured up by the “hockey stick” model — achieved only after massive fudging of the data and tinkering with the model:

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/0000000000000590

If this were a consumer product being sold, the FTC would be all over these people and Congress would be having hearings, class action lawsuits would be filed, etc. Instead, we have??

Nov 25, 2009 - 6:01 am 9. BackwardsBoy:

I call on this administration to repeal each and every law and regulation that is based on this now-proven hoax, immediately. Abandon any policy that you based on this disproven theory. Please use the same zeal that you employed when you originally drafted these unecessary rules to rid us of them.
Your rapid response will serve as the only apology necessary.

Nov 25, 2009 - 6:17 am 10. Brian from New Jersey:

I am glad to hear your voice in this, the final proof of what global warming skeptics have been saying for years: the IPCC data is largely cooked, it disregards all our scientific knowledge about the past, it overplays the role of a trace gas in the atmosphere and ignores the overwhelmingly larger role of gases like water vapor in retention of infrared emissions, it seeks to shroud its weak findings in a thin veil of fake scientific rigor, then it and its authors seek to spend the rest of time resisting all attempts to peek underneath it. Any environmentalist with a shred of honesty should be humiliated and outraged at the magnitude of the scam that has been perpetrated on them.

And Dr. Plimer, your book is brilliant and should be required reading for anyone interested in the climate debate. The case for anthropogenic global warming is demolished in the first 50 pages in my opinion, and the rest of the book serves to provide the reader with the scientific basis to recognize most of the false arguments and scientific fallacies that one sees in the press and elsewhere regarding AGW.

What should be most alarming about this in my view is that scientists would go to such lengths to propagate what is essentially a non-scientific political agenda. It is frightening to see an effort to spread untruths on such a massive scale, using science (and by doing so tarnishing science, by the way) as a cloak of authority. This is what a real propaganda machine looks like.

Nov 25, 2009 - 6:22 am 11. Claude Hopper:

Dr. Plimer: I am reading your book and now understand what it is like to stand in a hurricane wind. Your data comes at the reader at high speed. It comes so fast, it is hard to digest.
My guess about the hack, considering the main directory is called FOIA, is that it was collected in response to a FoI request; after review, an order was given to delete the directory and files. The order was carried out by deleting it from the univ. server by uploading it to a Russian server. Western Civilization has been saved from the political scientists.

Nov 25, 2009 - 6:30 am 12. Bob Bleck:

The emails prove that Mann made global warming is real…we’ve just been spelling it wrong.

Nov 25, 2009 - 6:51 am 13. Never for Obama:

Good thing these Climatologist Frauds are not on a Chinese grant.

I say, too bad they were not on a Chinese grant!
I’m not calling for a firing squad but I do think all the scientists who did this should be criminally prosecuted.

For all the damage and economic havoc these climatologists and their fake data have caused, they deserve far more punishment than our complicit government and media will dole out.
All the fakers who supported global warming will get is probably a slap on the hand.

Nov 25, 2009 - 6:54 am 14. BC:

Yeah, you’re missing something alright — all the science that has been developed the past several decades in understanding how climate works and what can affect it, both in the short term and the long. You yahoos act like all those past warming and cooling periods were never studied and researched — they were. Lots of things can affect climate, from something as dramatic as an asteroid hit to more subtle things like solar variation and the orbital characteristics of the earth. *All* of the those things have been looked at in regards to the current round of global warming, but none of those came close to explaining the situation. CO2 emissions from human activity combined with a greater understanding of the atmospheric factors in climate change, however, does explain it well enough to become the now dominant and most evidentially supported explanation for it.

As an analog, think of all the things that can make you feel ill with “flu-like” symptoms. Some are obvious, some not so; some are easily treatable, some are very bad news, but in any case you don’t know for sure, especially if it lingers longer or is worse that what you were expecting from a normal flu. That’s the deal with the climate, and best experts have made their diagnosis for the current climate symptoms, whether you like the news or not.

Nov 25, 2009 - 6:55 am 15. Henry Bowman:

While I strongly believe that Phil Jones and his accomplices are guilty as charged above, I must take issue with your statement

To argue that humans change climate requires abandoning all we know about history, archaeology, geology, astronomy, and solar physics. This is exactly what has been done.

This is simply untrue; humans have changed climate on the planet for some time, primarily via widespread changes in land use. The notion that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to substantial changes in global temperature, however, is simply bunk. Temps may go up, but nowhere near the amount that Jones’ cabal would have us believe. Clearly natural variations have been substantial in the past: who wants to go back to the Ice Age? Most of us would starve to death.

Nov 25, 2009 - 6:59 am 16. ~Paules:

The attempt to purloin .7 percent of the western world’s GDP by an unelected body is stunning for its boldness. I understand that President Obama intends to sign the Copenhagen Treaty. Will he then claim the treaty carries the force of law even if the US Senate votes it down? Who will be bold enough to stand on constitutional principles and defend congressional prerogatives? This gambit by the left could very well precipitate a constitutional crisis. I say bring it on.

Nov 25, 2009 - 7:04 am 17. moho:

Ian Rutherford Plimer (born February 12, 1946) is an Australian geologist, academic and businessman. He is a critic of creationism and of the scientific consensus that global warming is driven by anthropogenic CO2 . He has published approximately 60 academic papers and six books, including his book on the global warming debate, Heaven and Earth — Global Warming: The Missing Science. He is a director of three mining companies.

LOL. If he had any integrity at all, he’d have divulged this at the beginning of his little essay here. He doesn’t, he didn’t.

Nov 25, 2009 - 7:14 am 18. justasimplepatriot:

Please email Senator Inhofe (R-OK). He has been a lone voice of reason in the Senate against the AGW scam. He has called for an investigation base on the Climategate emails. Please encourage him to keep pressing and to investigate NASA and particularly GISS (Goddard Institute of Space Science) where James Hansen is nesting. Hansen is up to his ears in this scam.

Nov 25, 2009 - 7:15 am 19. Thomas_L......:

Can we say Y2Kyoto? I know we can.
So the fact that he is allegedly a director of THREE mining companies means he is less credible than El Gore who has quite profitably mined the AGW hysteria he helped to create? This is the kind of momomoronic “thinking” that got us here, alright. Thanks for that.

Nov 25, 2009 - 7:25 am 20. goy:

The truth behind this fraud was made abundantly apparent the day Phil Jones first refused to release his source data to Australian scientist Warwick Hughes. Jones’ “excuse”? He stated, “[w]e have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

As has been repeated ad nauseam regarding the AGW fraud, the whole point of scientific replication is to get at the truth by continually trying to “find something wrong” (i.e., with a theory, or the data, etc.).

What Jones was really trying to avoid – and has been successfully avoiding for half a decade – was having to explain how he produced the famous ‘hockey stick’ data from the original raw data.

Ultimately, Jones made the risible claim that the original, raw data was “lost” because there was no way to adequately store it. Such a statement only flies with the sort of person that is also gullible enough to vote for an inexperienced marxist of questionable parentage for POTUS.

All of this demonstrates that a grand conspiracy was never required to propagate the AGW fraud. Since virtually all AGW theory relies on or infers from a fundamental trust in Jones’ faked data – and given the absence of original, verifiable raw data, Jones’ numbers are quite properly labeled ‘fake’ – the number of individuals involved in the core fraud need not be large.

Whether they are prosecuted as such or not, Jones and anyone else directly involved in this fraud have elevated themselves to the status of criminal. The world at large needs to know, and as further analysis is performed on the computer model code used by these hacks, it will.

Nov 25, 2009 - 7:26 am 21. eman:

“Ian Rutherford Plimer (born February 12, 1946) is an Australian geologist, academic and businessman. He is a critic of creationism and of the scientific consensus that global warming is driven by anthropogenic CO2 . He has published approximately 60 academic papers and six books, including his book on the global warming debate, Heaven and Earth — Global Warming: The Missing Science. He is a director of three mining companies.

LOL. If he had any integrity at all, he’d have divulged this at the beginning of his little essay here. He doesn’t, he didn’t.”

Guilt by association. OK, let’s discuss Al Gore petroleum portfolio.

Nov 25, 2009 - 7:30 am 22. Jim Brown:

How can we believe a man who doesn’t know that “data” are plural?

Nov 25, 2009 - 7:36 am 23. goy:

@17. moho: – LOL. If he had any integrity at all…

Your inability to copy and paste appropriately precedes you.

If you had any integrity at all, you’d have cited your source: Wikipedia. Talk about LOL.

If you had any integrity at all, you’d have explained how an interest in mining operations has any bearing on pointing out the clear implications of known facts regarding the fraud Jones and others have perpetrated. You don’t, you didn’t. As usual.

Nov 25, 2009 - 7:38 am 24. moho:

Eman:

Guilt by association. OK, let’s discuss Al Gore petroleum portfolio.

Indeed, you should, if that’s what you feel is necessary to show that Gore is using his work on global warming to further his petroleum interests. What’s your point?

Nov 25, 2009 - 7:40 am 25. tdiinva:

Our two resident epsilon minus semi-morons (MoHo and BC) remind of this doomsday machine in the original Star Trek series. They have been unleashed with their talking points and tactics and continue on their path of intellectual death and destruction long after the people who have launched them have abandoned the field. I am sure that Phil “Lysenko” Jones and Michael “Piltdown” Mann appreciate their loyalty in these difficult time but I suspect that even they see them more as comic relief during a very trying and emotional time.

You guys should stick to bashing Sarah Palin threads. Your facts are always wrong but when it comes to politics illogical emotion is more acceptable.

Nov 25, 2009 - 7:41 am 26. BCblinders:

BC,

In your analogy, the patient has hives and pussy white deposits in his throat. You insist that the fever and body aches prove its the flu. The rest of us are suggesting there are other symptoms that you have not considered. In fact, there are also patients out there that are usually diagnosed with Toncilitus, Bronchitus, Strep Throat, etc.

But go on insisting your patient has the flu. Keep increasing the dose of Tamiflu until it eventually kills the patient.

Since the e-mails have been exposed, you officially have to stop playing the “consensus” card. The e-mails prove beyond any doubt that the consensus was contrived and coordinated to exclude, except and ostracize ligitimate scientific detractors and, indeed, entire sciency journal publications and peer reviews. From here on out, you are going to have to debate the actual science and forego silly feel good analogies, emotional tripe and “everybody knows it” propaganda. You need to lose the blinders.

Nov 25, 2009 - 7:45 am 27. VegasGuy:

Our problem (and by “our” I mean rational adult non-politicians), is that pretty much every western government and major media outlet is in bed with the criminal environmentalists. Retreating from their position is not something they even want to consider. Copenhagen? It will proceed as though nothing has changed.

Can you picture a special address by Obama which includes phrases like, “We were wrong.”, “We apologize to the American people.”, and “We will bring criminal charges against those involved in the fraud.”? Me either. Congress? Holder? The FBI? Major NYT exposé? How an honest EPA-sponsored investigation? Stand by for Coverup and Fraud II.

Nov 25, 2009 - 7:47 am 28. lyle:

Jim Brown,

How can we believe a nitpicker who can’t pick nits properly? When you refer to the word ‘data’ instead of actual data, the proper construction is:

How can we believe a man who doesn’t know that “data” is plural?

Nov 25, 2009 - 7:47 am 29. BCblinders:

MoHo,

I would hesitate and consider the issue of integrity before firing stones from the window of your glass house.

Nov 25, 2009 - 7:48 am 30. Fritz:

Ian, now what am I supposed to do with all of these carbon credits?

Nov 25, 2009 - 7:50 am 31. Richard:

Phil Jones to Mike Mann (of soon-to-be State Pen): ‘I did not have statistical relations with that data.’

Nov 25, 2009 - 7:51 am 32. Robert The Writer:

@ 17 “moho”:

When replying to skeptics of AGW, can’t you clowns do better than ad hominem argumentation? Whenever the names of any scientific skeptics appear in print, they invariably appear with some attribution to their funding sources — even if the funding was in the distant past, or utterly trivial. If you wish to continue down this logically fallacious road, are we skeptics entitled to likewise name the funding sources of all proponents of AGW? Do you want to see their names appear in the form of “Dr. James Hansen, who has received significant funding from foundations affiliated with left-wing billionaire George Soros. . .” — or perhaps, “. . . scientists at GISS, NCAR, and NOAA, who have received significantly increased funding from the Democratic-dominated Congress. . .” Etc.

Wouldn’t it be better if we simply focus on objective facts, such as the scientific data supporting the AGW theory? Or do the recent shocking revelations about the appalling quality of the official temperature data and climate-modeling programs leave you no other recourse than to resort to smears?

Nov 25, 2009 - 7:54 am 33. ~Paules:

So, which one of our trolls deserves the “Baghdad Bob” award? Can we award one as a collective prize, or should we recognize each on his own merits?

Nov 25, 2009 - 7:54 am 34. Bear:

The truth will out when the code is analyzed.
From what I’ve read it’s not pretty.

Anything short of full disclosure is unacceptable. Capitalizing on the fact that greenhouse gases keep the planet warm, for political purposes, should make you seriously question the end game, and the justifications that will ensue.

Nov 25, 2009 - 7:59 am 35. Stephen Brady:

@ BC #14

I know that you are dedicated to AGW. But you mentioned “the current round of global warming”. Exactly what global warming are you talking about.

You sound like an attorney whose argument has been destroyed by his opponent in court, and you are desperately trying to convince the jury by repeating your argument. When you lose the jury, you lose the case, and not even a white glove will save you, here.

There is no AGW. Your source has proved to be unreliable.

However, I’ve a good suggestion for ameliorating the current round of naturally-occurring global cooling. Breed more cows, and eat meat …

Burned cow on the grill. Ummm, good!

Nov 25, 2009 - 8:00 am 36. eman:

moho, my point is Dr. Plimer’s involvement in the mining industry may indicate bias, but does not suggest hypocrisy. Al Gore preaches one thing, and lives another thing.

Also, if Dr. Plimer’s resume suggests to you that his analysis is suspect, then perhaps you should delve into the interests of the AGW promoters as well.

Bring it all out, I say.

Nov 25, 2009 - 8:01 am 37. Poor Citizen:

No. 18 Justasimplepatriot:

Yes, email Jim Inhofe all you want..ha ha… But I am afraid that unless you work for an insurance company (he earned millions as an insurance company executive and real estate executive) or represent an oil company (only Cornyn gets more money than he does from the Saudi Arabian oil Cartel), he will not listen to you. He gets millions from them, they own him and he sees pollution as progress. He also supports torture and says human rights is an evil concept. So you can save alot of time by just not bothering to send him anything, he already has enough money and he will light his cigar with your paper…

Nov 25, 2009 - 8:02 am 38. goy:

@27. VegasGuy: – Can you picture a special address by Obama which includes phrases like, “We were wrong.”

Heh. Not a chance.

If he’s forced to finally admit that AGW has been a fraud since Day One, BHO will do what the left ALWAYS does: play the victim card. He’ll do a series of Left Wing Media interviews talking about how he (yes, he) was lied to by self-serving hacks in the scientific community whose only aim was to perpetuate their grant income, defraud the taxpayers and gain political influence. That’s one topic on which he can speak with extensive authority.

Then, after all that, he’ll push for cap-and-tax-and-spend legislation anyway, based on some other fake rationale his lemming followers will fall for.

Nov 25, 2009 - 8:03 am 39. moho:

Goy. Here’s the thing with Wikipedia. A good wikipedia entry provides footnotes of sources. If you check the sources and they pan out, there’s obviously nothing wrong with using Wikipedia as a source. LOL. As if doing what you do–desperately going after the first hit you get on google–is an alternative of some kind.

As for the rest of your douchy bit%^-post–the concept is called conflict of interest. See if you can follow me here–when you have a stake in business that will suffer or benefit from the issue at hand, you state it at the outset. Otherwise, people may think that you’re trying to manipulate opinion for your own profit. I know you learn a bit slower than the other children, but its still disappointing to see you floundering with the most simple ideas.

Nov 25, 2009 - 8:11 am 40. Steve in Arlington:

Global Warming is to Al Gore what WMD’s were to George Bush.

And “moho”…given your “scientists” approach to the Freedom of Information requests…I would think “integrity” would be the last thing you would be trumpeting in this case.

Nov 25, 2009 - 8:11 am 41. moho:

moho, my point is Dr. Plimer’s involvement in the mining industry may indicate bias, but does not suggest hypocrisy.

I didn’t suggest it meant hypocrisy. Indeed, you can blame PJM for not noting this when they published the piece and the author for not mentioning it in his article. Certainly, it should not be a troll doing due diligence for you, think about that.

Nov 25, 2009 - 8:18 am 42. moho:

given your “scientists”

LOL. Yes, I have scientists, but they are involved in the research of politically related cognitive impairment, not climate change. I’m currently collecting data for them on this site; thanks for your contribution.

Nov 25, 2009 - 8:20 am 43. myth buster:

38. Maybe he’ll be able to pull that off, but scapegoating the scientific community requires a massive prosecution resulting in massive fines and jail terms. The question is will academia stand by him when he threatens their livelihood.

Nov 25, 2009 - 8:24 am 44. tdiinva:

Moho doesn’t know that he is the actual subject for the study. They just told him that he was doing “research” for them.

He will of course ignore the insult and press on showing us his lack of intellectual capacity. I don’t see any point in arguing facts with him because he lives in the “fact free reality” based community.

Nov 25, 2009 - 8:27 am 45. moho:

Mythbuster/Goy:

It is to laugh. Neither of you understand the science, you have no idea of the context of the emails. There is no serious evidence that global warming science is fraudulent, only that some of the people behind it are cya-obsessed a-holes. Indeed, here you are trying desperately to ignore the fact that the writer of this piece is the director of THREE MINING COMPANIES:

Ivanhoe:
Plimer is a director of CBH Resources, a Sydney-based mineral resource company with a mine at Cobar and an underground mine in Broken Hill. He is also a director of Ivanhoe Resources, which has a large ore body outside Cloncurry in Queensland.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25555783-5018662,00.html

This database was compiled by a team which included Professor Ian Plimer (now a director of KEFI Minerals) and it gives its owner an advantage in Turkey because it consists of high quality prospecting reconnaissance data.
http://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/363/kefi-minerals-has-how-many-gold-prospects-in-turkey-0363.html

Links courtesy of Wikipedia, [drying eyes from laughter]

Nov 25, 2009 - 8:35 am 46. moho:

I don’t see any point in arguing facts

If I were as stupid as you, I’d take another route as well.

Nov 25, 2009 - 8:37 am 47. goy:

@39. moho: – Here’s the thing with Wikipedia.

Which you failed to actually cite with your typical craven (and false) bravado, because of the standard guffaws and appropriate ridicule that you knew would ensue. That makes you little more than a sniveling coward. Who, in desperation, quotes Wikipedia.

- A good wikipedia entry provides footnotes of sources.

You’ve provided no evidence leading one to believe you’re in any way qualified to tell a ‘good’ Wikipedia entry from a bad one.

But what makes you an even bigger joke – in addition to your admission that you quoted Wikipedia without having the courage to actually cite it as a source – is that you now admit that you never bothered to follow the footnotes on that article. To wit, you seem to think Plimer has a…

- … conflict of interest.

So far you’ve failed to actually demonstrate the nature of this conflict. If you had any credibility you would have done so. You don’t, you didn’t. As usual.

Nov 25, 2009 - 8:42 am 48. BC:

To Stephen Brady: Well, there’s this stuff and that. And this is a not bad read about the American ignorance of the issues.

Nov 25, 2009 - 8:43 am 49. Mr Lucky:

14. BC.

“That’s the deal with the climate, and best experts have made their diagnosis for the current climate symptoms, whether you like the news or not.”

When are you going to submit your conclusions to scientific peer review?

How many peopleget sick and die from faulty medical diagnoses each year?

Buyer beware.

Nov 25, 2009 - 8:44 am 50. Mike Blackadder:

BC: “Yeah, you’re missing something alright — all the science that has been developed the past several decades in understanding how climate works and what can affect it, both in the short term and the long.”

Contemporary reconstructions in paleoclimatology do not reveal any understanding of historical events like Roman Warming, MWP or the little ice age. In fact the whole point of ‘hockey-stick’ reconstructions is that they provide evidence that these events either did not happen or were so small that they are dwarfed by the 0.7C warming that has occurred in the past century. So your assertion that today climatologists have some deeper understanding of these historical events is simply false, and no I don’t think that they are explained by meteors, volcanic eruptions or anything else that you just made up off the top of your head.

Understanding that ‘new climatology’ as defined by Michael Mann, Keith Briffa and the IPCC is a radical departure from our previous understanding of climate events through history, it is natural to question the validity of these new findings (at least it is natural among people with any natural curiosity or understanding of scientific methods).

BC, one might think that an intelligent person like yourself might explore what “all the science that has been developed the past several decades” actually consists of before weighing in on the conversation. Did you know that the scientific basis for denying the occurrence of MWP, little ice age and Roman Warming are based on measurements from a select group of trees, whose growth is postulated to be coincident not with local temperature variation but with global temperatures variation by arguing that these trees are ‘tele-connected’ to global temperatures? Were you aware that Mann’s hockey-stick reconstruction was officially debunked by Steve McIntyre years before the emergence of the latest IPCC report (a point conceded by the hockey team) and that only recently Steve managed to get his hands on Briffa’s much-cited reconstruction only to find that it consisted of 10 solitary trees! No wonder you see so much evidence in their e-mail correspondence that they were reluctant to release their data or methods.

So you can hang your hat on the scientific argument that all historical knowledge of climate should be abandoned because there exist 10 trees that can predict global temperatures over the past 1000 years to within 0.1 degrees C. There is no point arguing about matters of faith. The cold hard facts continue to stack up against your side of the argument, and it is becoming more apparent that the only defense these fake scientists could muster was to swear to secrecy, hide their work and collude amongst themselves to build a strong political argument rather than even attempt to strengthen the integrity of their work. You’re just another sucker, and your ignorance of the facts explains your willingness.

Nov 25, 2009 - 8:49 am 51. Clay Marley:

In earlier times, scientists were motivated by nothing more than the search for truth. Scientists were often very religious men who studied the universe to study God’s creation. Kepler said scientists “are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature.”

We see in the case of AGW, science motivated not by the search for truth, but by political ideology, mixed in with greed and pride. This becomes painfully evident after browsing the e-mails. It is evident in the attempts here to defend these people. Any time we see such motivations, in any field of science, corruption is guaranteed to follow. And without any moral foundation, those involved remain oblivious to it.

Nov 25, 2009 - 8:51 am 52. moho:

Goy. Fail in so many lovely, richly humurous ways. If you wanted to disprove the Wikipedia article, you could have simply gone to it, instead of waiting for me to post the sources. Believe it or not, your post fills me with a sort of melancholy–what pathos!

Nov 25, 2009 - 8:57 am 53. XiaoMei:

Very well, moho, I found out more about Ian Plimer’s mining interests, from wikipedia.

Kefi Minerals is gold and copper exploration.

Ivanhoe Australia is copper, gold and uranium.

CBH Resources is silver-lead-zinc, copper-zinc, and a number of base metal exploration projects.

How does metal mining compromise Plimer’s stance on AGW?

Nov 25, 2009 - 8:58 am 54. John McLachlan:

….and then president Barack Hussein Obama announced that Congress and Senate should immediately, because of the urgency of the crisis, revoke all legislation planned, or treaties, which were based upon policies founded upon a criminal conspiracy, as dastardly and dishonest as ACORN’s furthering sex-trafficing, child prostitution, extortion and voter fraud.

Nov 25, 2009 - 9:01 am 55. XiaoMei:

36. eman:

Dr. Plimer’s involvement in the mining industry may indicate bias

How? He is not a coal miner. I still want to know how gold, copper, zinc, silver, uranium, and lead contest the AGW thesis. Or is it the act of mining itself? I.e., do all mines in the world need to be scaled down or shut down? Bauxite, salt, talc, etc?

Nov 25, 2009 - 9:04 am 56. seguin:

so moho has absolutely no problem with people manipulating data to confound and disrupt the peer review process? good to know.

And to help with the argument you’re having with the other guy, mo, how about Al Gore’s Carbon credit business? Isn’t THAT a conflict of interest?

Nov 25, 2009 - 9:09 am 57. seguin:

Whoops, forgot to add this part to my last post:

There is some indirect evidence that some ice sheets may have disappeared during the MWP. The Vinland map, which latest analysis indicates is a partial forgery (Vinland may have been drawn onto a real map used for church business) shows Greenland’s north coast in detail.

Nov 25, 2009 - 9:13 am 58. Mr Lucky:

44. tdiinva.

“He will of course ignore the insult and press on showing us his lack of intellectual capacity. I don’t see any point in arguing facts with him because he lives in the “fact free reality” based community.”

This the (same?) moho who when asked by commenter Donna V. awhile back about his community service. He replied by calling her an idiot, and then proceeded to tell he that the question was stupid because he could make up anything, lie about anything, and how would she know the difference.

Modern Liberal Integrity.

Nov 25, 2009 - 9:15 am 59. Mike Blackadder:

Moho, geology and statistics are crucial areas of expertise for any mining operation. You shouldn’t be alarmed that anyone with knowledge in these areas would be a natural enemy of
those who bastardize statistics and ignore geology.

Besides, the whole point of science is to avoid relying on the opinions of individuals as a basis for knowledge. I think that your input would be better appreciated at a site like Real Climate where there are others who are satisfied to bask in the glory of their unbreachable consensus. Your opinion of the author’s motivations and your drive-by commentary don’t hold any sway among people interested in seeking out the truth. If you are interested in the latter then substance is required.

Nov 25, 2009 - 9:27 am 60. Moho:

Xiao…

Well, for one thing:
Ivanhoe mines coal under its subsidiary: Southgobi Energy…
http://www.ivanhoemines.com/s/World_Of_Ivanhoe.asp

But really, I don’t pretend to be an expert on Pilmer or mining’s impact on climate. Here’s Pilmer, in his own words, explaining why climate change science, if proven to be valid, would destroy his business interests [which he also carefully hides in this interview as well]:

TICKY FULLERTON, PRESENTER: There’s another voice raising alarm at the impact of emissions trading on the resource sector.
…

IAN PLIMER: …

It is very hard for junior and medium sized mining companies to lobby government. And for the bigger mining companies, they can easily move somewhere else and take their operations elsewhere.

I see that if this [cap and trade] goes through to its natural course, we could destroy Australia’s greatest wealth generating industry, and that’s the mining industry. And we all live off the mining industry.

We do not live off the sheep’s back; we live off the mining industry.

TICKY FULLERTON: What do you think the Emissions Trading Scheme is going to do to the mining industry?

It will probably destroy it totally, it’ll create massive unemployment and we’ll have a change of Government. That’s the very clear message…

TICKY FULLERTON: That you’re getting that from the industry?

….
IAN PLIMER: Even if Australia does do something about climate it’s not going to affect the globe, it’s a very, very big planet. And we’re just going to leave ourselves open to lose all our markets.

TICKY FULLERTON: Professor Ian Plimer, thank you for talking to Lateline Business.

IAN PLIMER: It’s a pleasure.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/business/items/200811/s2416977.htm

Nov 25, 2009 - 9:33 am 61. Jack in Silver Spring:

BC @ #14: Stop already with the pejoratives. If you have something to contribute and you want to disagree, do so without being disagreeable. Calling contriutors here, “yahoos” and elsewhere, “loony tunes” makes your contributions unserious. When you have to stoop to ad hominems, that means you have run out of useful things to say.

Nov 25, 2009 - 9:34 am 62. moho:

Mr.Lucky:

He replied by calling her an idiot, and then proceeded to tell he that the question was stupid because he could make up anything, lie about anything, and how would she know the difference.

For your children, for the world, please take a class on logic.

Nov 25, 2009 - 9:34 am 63. Fred Beloit:

To those like Moho, Poor Folk, and BC the tenets of librulism make defending the indefensible possible:
Tenet 1. The alleged higher political truth of the narrative overrides and invalidates mere facts. Examples: The unscientific basis for AGW and the saga of Rigoberta Menchu.

Nov 25, 2009 - 9:36 am 64. Stephen Brady:

@BC #48

Your primary witness has lost his credibility. Are you not aware of this, yet? The jury is scowling at you, and the judge wants his time not to be wasted, anymore.

“American ignorance of the issues …”

Your chauvinism is showing …

Nov 25, 2009 - 9:41 am 65. goy:

@52. moho: – If you wanted to disprove the Wikipedia article …

You’re clueless as usual. I don’t need to disprove the article. All I need to do is point out that you haven’t demonstrated any conflict of interest.

So far – by your “logic” – anyone in an industry that will suffer due to cap-and-tax-and-spend policies based on AGW “science” fraud has a conflict of interest if they point out the fraud. As such, anyone with a job or an interest in any industry is therefore barred from calling B.S. on AGW fraud according to you. Sorry. Doesn’t fly, nimrod.

Nov 25, 2009 - 9:43 am 66. moho:

Jack in Silver Spring:
If you have something to contribute and you want to disagree, do so without being disagreeable. Calling contriutors here, “yahoos” and elsewhere, “loony tunes” makes your contributions unserious. When you have to stoop to ad hominems, that means you have run out of useful things to say.

Like many pearl-clutching fabulists, you either purposefully or through ignorance misundertand Ad hominem. Ad hominem is using insult as the only argument, side-stepping the issue, to conclude that a person’s purported short-comings invalidate their opinion. This person drinks too much, therefore they are wrong about this issue, for example.

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

When someone argues a point based on logic and evidence, and concludes their point by implying that their opponent’s lack of understanding of the issue suggests cognitive impairment, that is not ad hominem. That is just honesty. Its not pretty, nor is it nice. But if you can’t handle being called an idiot when someone owns you in an argument, then stay home and play scrabble.

Nov 25, 2009 - 9:43 am 67. Moho:

All I need to do is point out that you haven’t demonstrated any conflict of interest.

LOL. I’m really enjoying this progression of posts.

Nov 25, 2009 - 9:47 am 68. Thomas_L......:

C’mon people! The only thing more pathetic than the drivel brought forth by momo and company is the wasted effort to debate them. Debase them instead. It’s all they deserve for the “quality” of their “arguments”. Momo, you are ridiculous and stupid, despite the lies your mother may have told you to the contrary.

Nov 25, 2009 - 9:47 am 69. Wil:

Some of Dr. Jones’ e-mails openly and specifically admit to flat-out lying about raw climate data, as well as about climate data that had been collated and processed. He also encouraged a number of other prominent climate scientists to do the same, even detailing the best ways to mathematically cheat. Based on the way these things almost always pan out in the real world, Dr. Jones is probably just the tip of a very large iceberg.

Dr. Jones was well aware that his climate center was the leading center, of only four in the world, that was entrusted with generating, maintaining, collating and disseminating raw climate data. Dr. Jones openly admits to destroying data, hiding data, cherry picking data, and dishonestly processing data, knowing that the U.N. and thousands of other scientists, organizations, and governments would be using his falsified raw data to make trends and to draw conclusions. He did this knowing that government policies in dozens of countries (at least) and the use of hundreds of billions of dollars of tax payer’s money was at stake.

Going forward, we can not know which stories about the climate and about global warming are true, which stories are wild exaggerations, and which stories are complete fabrications. Until all climate scientists, and their data and models, have been investigated and cleaned up, my default position will be to assume that every climate story or global warming story that I see in the MSM is a flat out lie.

Nov 25, 2009 - 9:52 am 70. Anonymous:

So let’s concede for the moment the author is the director of three mining companies.

So what? How is that relevant to the content of his position?

Nov 25, 2009 - 9:52 am 71. Bonzo:

@17 moho: “He is a director of three mining companies. If he had any integrity at all, he’d have divulged this at the beginning of his little essay here. He doesn’t, he didn’t.”

He didn’t because it’s completely irrelevant to the scientific points he makes. Nice try at diverting from the argument via a predictable ad hominem, though. Further proof that you have no scientific rebuttal to the actual substance of the article.

Nov 25, 2009 - 9:53 am 72. Ken O'Banion:

moho (#42) wrote:

LOL. Yes, I have scientists, but they are involved in the research of politically related cognitive impairment, not climate change. I’m currently collecting data for them on this site; thanks for your contribution.

You’re in the wrong thread, dude; the Andrew-Sullivan’s-Psychotic-Obsession-with-Sarah-Palin’s-Uterus thread is here.

(In the immortal words of “Uncle Don“: “There. That ought to hold the little .”)

Nov 25, 2009 - 9:55 am 73. moho:

Anonymous. As the chef told the human torso at the Carnival Freak Cook Off–”I can only cook it, I can’t eat it for you.”

Nov 25, 2009 - 9:56 am 74. Brian:

If experiments cannot be performed by a different scientist at another time, it isn’t science at all… its dribble. These yahoo’s couldnt even duplicate results ON THEIR OWN EXPERIMENTS! They had to fall back on the conclusions for those unrepeatable experiments. Which anyone would have to assume were potentially flawed.
Science is supposed to be open, if you hide the models and you hide the data then there is no point in being published…. no one can confirm the results. At it’s most basic level this CANNOT be considered science.
This must be the “new” scientific method?

Nov 25, 2009 - 9:57 am 75. goy:

@67. Moho: – I’m really enjoying this progression of posts.

Idiots like you are almost always so easily entertained.

Meanwhile, when you find an actual ‘conflict of interest’ involved in calling B.S. on the fraud behind AGW – let alone any actual errors in Plimer’s observations – do sing out.

Nov 25, 2009 - 9:59 am 76. moho:

Jack. As I was saying, this is an example of Ad hominem, below. Thomas L. obviously lacks the balls or brains to argue his point, and so he quite honestly admits that he chooses another route, saying:

The only thing more pathetic than the drivel brought forth by momo and company is the wasted effort to debate them. Debase them instead. It’s all they deserve for the “quality” of their “arguments”.

Note that the poster has substituted the actual content of the arguments he opposes with an appeal to insult. This is what Ad hominem actually is, and if you look closely at almost any PJM comments section, its exactly how your cohort handle any criticism.

Nov 25, 2009 - 9:59 am 77. moho:

Goy, see 73.

Nov 25, 2009 - 10:00 am 78. moho:

[sigh] Believe it or not, you children actually disappoint me. Yeah, I didn’t think it was possible either.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-alarmism-is-underpinned-by-fraud-pjm-exclusive/comment-page-2/#comment-60

Nov 25, 2009 - 10:03 am 79. Stephen Brady:

@Anonymous #70

Indeed, Mr. Gore has operated a Zinc mine on his land in Tennessee for many years, significantly polluting the local streams. His family made its fortune in the oil business.

I could care less, as do you (I think), if Dr. Pilmer is a mine owner. It’s the hypocrisy of the Left that irritates the heck out of me.

Nov 25, 2009 - 10:03 am 80. Sherab Zangpo:

To argue that humans change climate requires abandoning all we know about history, archaeology, geology, astronomy, and solar physics.

All the nihilists need to know is in Das Kapital.
They don’t need science, culture, philosophy, they have their blind faith in ideology.

Don’t hope for a second that these nazis will relent, for they will not (can you imagine hitler relenting ?).

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Nov 25, 2009 - 10:05 am 81. Warren Bonesteeel:

“Angry,” Dr. Plimer?

I might have chosen another word or phrase to describe my feelings about this scam. ‘Murderous rage,’ for example…

Nov 25, 2009 - 10:08 am 82. Pragmatist:

Hi guys I know its hard but please just ignore the antisemitic, anti American , Mohammedan TERRORIST TRAITOR supporting ad hominem and tu quoque spewing TROLL Moho he only posts on here to wind people up. Te more you get upset the better he likes it the cretin.

Nov 25, 2009 - 10:09 am 83. Sebastian Shaw:

These e-mails are the smoking gun to prove the Global Warming “science” is fraud; the story needs to be so big the MSM cannot ignore it. Drop Al Gore in Antarctica in a bathing suit. See how much Global Warming he feels when he freezes into a human statue.

Nov 25, 2009 - 10:11 am 84. goy:

@77. moho: – … see 73.

Done. Thanks for the laugh at your expense / inability to come up with anything substantive.

Nov 25, 2009 - 10:11 am 85. Tex Expatriate:

I have been very angry about this fraud for at least fifteen years, and annoyed for another ten years. It may be intuitive among people to think that they affect climate change because people do affect the environment. But that’s as far as it goes. There has never been any credible evidence for the global warming theories or the climate change theories. All genuine climate science disproves them. Most “science” regarding climate change has been the variety practiced in Britain.

Socialists of whatever variety (Communist, Fascist, Progressive, Democrat et al)jumped on the global warming/climate change bandwagon for the purpose of destroying free market economies that produce wealth and perpetuate freedom.

Nov 25, 2009 - 10:13 am 86. BC:

To Mike Blackadder: In many respects, what exactly is the cause of the very sharp & recent (by paleoclimatology standards) is very much like an episode of CSI: you have at first a situation and a bunch of data, and the “trick” is to then come up with a scenario that explains it all, especially when you look closer at the evidence (I put quotes around “trick” because of how people have been stupidly or maliciously misinterpreting the use of the word “trick” in those stolen emails — it just means a clever way of solving a problem.)

And if you do indeed look long and hard enough at *all* the evidence related to the recent warming, the only scenario that at all fits is that human activity is the culprit. What you and others have been doing, whether innocently or not, is only getting bits and pieces of all the evidence, and you should know that parsing information that way can paint a drastically different picture from what all the evidence would show.

And as a footnote, Mann’s hockey-stick was never “officially debunked” by McIntyre. There were basically a few minor issues with the way that Mann constructed the graph, and McIntyre seized on those, but once those problems were corrected, you still ended up with something like a hockey stick, but with maybe a touch of sickle.

Nov 25, 2009 - 10:13 am 87. jodetoad:

The bubble is burst, we have seen enough. The arguments of impugning others bear no relationship to what we have seen. AGW is exposed as a fraud, and no noise-making around the edges changes that.

Nov 25, 2009 - 10:14 am 88. moho:

Pragmatist. You’re my troll,you understand that right? You rarely if ever comment on the actual articles, only on me. What a doosh. Self-pwnage thy name is Pragmatist [when it is not Goy's]

Nov 25, 2009 - 10:17 am 89. moho:

As I said, Goy, this progession of posts is a gut-buster. Ignore comment 60 if you like. I’ve posted it twice now. Try humming really loud, that used to work for my little sister.

Nov 25, 2009 - 10:19 am 90. Pragmatist:

MOHO I am not your TROLL I am your NEMESIS.

Nov 25, 2009 - 10:33 am 91. Pragmatist:

BC spinning as ever you must get really dizzy you spin so much

Nov 25, 2009 - 10:35 am 92. NikFromNYC:

Hide the decline:

http://i49.tinypic.com/m9vcxv.jpg

Nov 25, 2009 - 10:35 am 93. Pragmatist:

Here is the RACIAL divide that OBAMA has caused laid bare this from Rasmussen today

“The President earns approval from 97% of African-American voters and disapproval from 61% of white voters. ”

Quite clearly BLACKS are stuck in their RACIST groove.

Nov 25, 2009 - 10:37 am 94. Sherab Zangpo:

FROM FOXNEWS.COM:

President Obama will travel to Copenhagen to attend an international conference on climate change, White House officials told Fox News.

The president is expected to travel to the United Nations summit on Dec. 9 before heading to Oslo to accept his Nobel Peace Prize.

At the summit, Obama will propose to cut greenhouse gas emissions by a range of 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, the White House said, adding that he wants to reduce emissions by 30 percent by 2025, 42 percent by 2030 and 83 percent by 2050.

They will not relent.

Nov 25, 2009 - 10:37 am 95. XiaoMei:

60 moho:

The ABC introduces Plimer as a “geologist” and a “Professor of Mining Geology at the University of Adelaide.” Plimer candidly speaks on behalf of the mining industry. I do not see anything being “carefully hidden.” If Plimer’s directorships are germane, why doesn’t reporter Ticky Fullerton raise them?

Nov 25, 2009 - 10:38 am 96. Pragmatist:

# 88 MOHO your ARROGANCE betrays you for the NARCISSIST you are I quote and post on MNAY subjects YOU just happen to be the most CONSISTENTLY stupid recipient of my satire.

Nov 25, 2009 - 10:40 am 97. moho:

MOHO I am not your TROLL I am your NEMESIS.

When I read this, I immediately thought of a midget with high pitched squeeky voice saying those words. Oh lord [drying eyes], I sometimes feel guilty getting this kind of entertainment for free.

Nov 25, 2009 - 10:41 am 98. Moho:

“The President earns approval from 97% of African-American voters and disapproval from 61% of white voters.

Quite clearly BLACKS are stuck in their RACIST groove.

Can you explain the logic here? Why is it proof that Blacks are racists, rather than proof that whites are racist? Personally, I don’t think you can divine any racism from this data whatsoever in either respect. But it seems like you are saying that if blacks agreed with whites on this issue, they would not be racist; you are literally arguing that when African Americans deviate from white opinions, they are abnormal.

Just a minute…I’ll be right back with the popcorn.

Nov 25, 2009 - 10:44 am 99. arthur williams:

Thanks so much Ian Plimer for this article. I am damned well sick of idiotic “moderate” bloggers and their non-absolute blather. I would invite readers of this article to compare it to an article posted 11/24 by Ilya Somin on his The Volock Conspiracy, in which he says, “I lack relevant scientific expertise on global warming, so I don’t have anything useful to say about the scientific issues involved.” The whole article and its underlying premise is similarly irritating. I find this annoying claim that we all must be clomatologists to understand the “scientific issues involved” in far too many articles on the web and in periodical literature. Global warming dogma is not science at all. It is a collectivist, political power play, and it is bunk, bunk, bunk.

Thanks again.

Nov 25, 2009 - 10:45 am 100. moho:

If Plimer’s directorships are germane, why doesn’t reporter Ticky Fullerton raise them?

An odd question; I can’t speak for Fullerton. Rather, do you think they’re germane? That’s the only legitimate question. If you think that a leading chef and director of a chocolate factory going on a tv show advocating chocolate subsidies while declining to state his financial incentive is honest, then go your own way. Apropeau, I’ve got a great investment opportunity for you that will make you tons of money at Moho Enterprises. Trust me, this opportunity is made especially for people like you. Email me.

Nov 25, 2009 - 10:48 am 101. goy:

@86. BC: – There were basically a few minor issues with the way that Mann constructed the graph, …

You keep ignoring the inconvenient fact that the raw (“bunch of”) data for that fakery has never been made available. In fact, there’s now good reason to believe that the original numbers were in fact destroyed by Phil Jones.

Hell, I’d be willing to accept that Mann may even have believed he was working with real – not faked – data, except for stuff like this. But Jones has made it clear that he is incapable of reproducing global temperature data because the original values have been ‘lost’. That may pass for scientific rigor in your mind. If so, you clearly aren’t qualified to hold an opinion on this issue.

.

@89. moho: – Ignore comment 60 if you like.

No need. That red herring has already been addressed. But do continue repeating it as many times as you like. Maybe that tactic will work better for you than it did for Clinton.

Nov 25, 2009 - 10:50 am 102. Tetenterre:

Good article. My only beef is that you didn’t mention the Holocene Climatic Optimum, which was warmer than either the RWP or MWP. This is the period during which the great civilizations of Ancient Babylon, Sumeria and Egypt flourished.

Nov 25, 2009 - 10:56 am 103. David:

Genomics researchers routinely upload their experimental data to databases operated by the National Institutes of Health and other institutions, and these databases are available to all. I was surprised, make that stunned, to see these climatologists not only failing to make their data publicly available, but actively trying to prevent it. But I guess that is the difference between actual science and “science” as practiced by the climate priesthood.

Nov 25, 2009 - 10:57 am 104. Jack in Silver Spring:

moho @ #66: One definition of ad hominem:
attacking an opponent’s character rather than answering his argument. Link is at:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad+hominem

If calling contributors here “loony tunes” or “yahoos” does not qualify as an ad hominem attack according to that definition, I don’t know what does.

Nov 25, 2009 - 11:00 am 105. moho:

That red herring has already been addressed.

LOL. Sure it has. I’m actually starting to feel sorry for you.

Nov 25, 2009 - 11:03 am 106. Pragmatist:

We have just seen evidence which makes ALL the corruption in countries of the world such as Indonesia , Pakistan, Nigeria, India, Saudi, Bangladesh, China etc etc pale in to insignificance and STILL the MSM and our Governments remain CRIMINALLY aloof if not COMPLICIT and totally ignorant of the scale and scope of the DECEPTION and SCAM which has been perpetrated by the AGW CRIMINALS’

Nov 25, 2009 - 11:03 am 107. ETAB:

People- moho posts on other threads and is as ignorant about facts on other issues, as he is here, with his ungrounded support for AGW. And he behaves the same; refuses to provide factual and analytic reasons for his rebuttals..and just insults everyone.

moho – Dr. Plimer is a geologist; that’s why he’s on the Board of Directors of several mining companies. All companies ask experts in their fields to be on their boards. That doesn’t mean corporate ownership;it refers to a function of advising and reviewing the recommendations of their on-staff geologists and even, assisting with budget etc for that same work.

You’ll find such expertise as directors on all boards that deal in ‘material reality’. Why? Because they know the field; they can help with budget planning for the geological work; and with other issues that pertain to their expertise.

You are being illogical. You are essentially saying that
“IF X is an expert in a field AND on a corporation’s board as such, THEN, his scientific views on Y are invalid.”

This means that you support:
“If X is an expert in a field AND refuses to be on any corporation’s board, THEN his scientific views on Y are valid’.

I don’t think that you could prove, factually or logically, that a scientist who advises a business, is rendered incapable of scientific reliability.

Your #60 post doesn’t show that Dr. Plimer’s views against AGW are scientifically invalid. He is a scientist; you cannot also, logically, say that because he is on the board of directors of several companies..that he is no longer a valid scientist.

All he is talking about is the COST of anti-CO2 measures for the industry; this is a factual and logical argument; it happens to be true. Such measures would indeed force many companies into bankruptcy.

AND, if scientific facts show that AGW is not valid, then, destroying the economy is illogical. Agree?

Nov 25, 2009 - 11:07 am 108. Pragmatist:

#98 MOHO well lets see in the Election 96% of Blacks voted for the Obamanation noe=w its 97% who support him meanwhile the WHITE support he had at OVER 55% has fallen to 39% as Whites see what a RACIST Mr ,STUPID WHITE POLICEMAN, DONT JUDGE THE MOHAMMEDAN TERRORIST Obama is. Duhhh so BLACKS STILL think he is GREAT despite all the EVIDENCE that PROVES he is not only a RACIST but INCOMPETENT and a MOHAMMEDAN ars* licker to boot.

Nov 25, 2009 - 11:11 am 109. Moho:

Jack. The key word here is “rather”. Ad hominem has nothing to say about doing so “in addition” to answering his argument. In fact, there is no logical fallacy associated with insulting your opponent.

Nov 25, 2009 - 11:12 am 110. moho:

Pragmatist. I must say, every time I think you’ve demonstrated the intellectual depths to which a human can sink and still be considered to be sentient, you surprise again. Chapeau.

Nov 25, 2009 - 11:14 am 111. baal:

Remember this:Moho is a 400 lb woman who works for moveon.org…. It’s not hard to figure out that her hatred for men/the west/america is due to the fact of this. Yes, I’m feeling charitable right now.

Nov 25, 2009 - 11:14 am 112. Pragmatist:

Iy also PROVES of course that the REAL RACISTS are the Blacks.

Nov 25, 2009 - 11:17 am 113. Pragmatist:

THIS IS AD HOMINEM and is what MOHO does ALL the time.

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, “Ad Hominem” means “against the man” or “against the person.”

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A’s claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem

1. Bill: “I believe that abortion is morally wrong.”
Dave: “Of course you would say that, you’re a priest.”
Bill: “What about the arguments I gave to support my position?”
Dave: “Those don’t count. Like I said, you’re a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can’t believe what you say.”

Nov 25, 2009 - 11:20 am 114. Sherab Zangpo:

Folks,
do not expect that a communist government will acknowledge the falsity of communist propaganda. Period.
We live in a totalitarian regime until the day we will be able to roll it back by legal elections. Period.
Take it easy and spread culture and information all around you , until the day the totalitarians will gag the Net.
After that, start the samizdat.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Nov 25, 2009 - 11:21 am 115. goy:

@111. baal: – Moho is a 400 lb woman …

… posting from Sacramento, CA.

Moho’s intellectual deficit may be explained by her living so close to such unbridled insanity.

Nov 25, 2009 - 11:29 am 116. moho:

LOL Pragmatist. That’s exactly what I posted. The difference is you don’t understand what you’re posting.

Nov 25, 2009 - 11:36 am 117. tdiinva:

Why are you guys still responding to the trolls.

The facts are clear. CRU data has been manipulated to produce global warming. This data is used to underpin the IPCC. CRU acknowledges the accuracy and authenticity of the material that has made it into the public record. Case closed. Our trolls are simply going through a series of canned tactics in a frenzy to convince themselves, not us, that catastrohic AGW is happening. It’s tied to put them on ignore as they clearly lack the capacity for reasoned argument. Frankly, if it were my blog, I would have let them have their say and then closely monitor their posts allowing only those that talk the science and not the talking points that as H.R. Halderman would say are no longer operative.

Nov 25, 2009 - 11:42 am 118. Pragmatist:

Lets let the blog READERS decide that MOHO I know what you are and they do too

Nov 25, 2009 - 11:44 am 119. peter jackson:

Nemesis always follows hubris— always. I have to admit it’s great fun watching leftist tools like Moho dutifully bucket-bailing the dinghy, oblivious to the tsunami wall rising above them.

Nov 25, 2009 - 11:46 am 120. Pragmatist:

BTW MOHO link please to where YOU posted that definition

Nov 25, 2009 - 11:47 am 121. Jack in Silver Spring:

Pragmatist @ #113 – Thank you.

Also, to others, let’s cut the ad hominem attacks on moho and BC and stick to the issue at hand.

Nov 25, 2009 - 11:48 am 122. Mike:

“There were basically a few minor issues with the way that Mann constructed the graph, and McIntyre seized on those, but once those problems were corrected, you still ended up with something like a hockey stick, but with maybe a touch of sickle.”

Nov 25, 2009 - 11:53 am 123. Sebastian Shaw:

Moho has no mojo.

Nov 25, 2009 - 11:54 am 124. Sebastian Shaw:

With the ObamaCare bomb set to explode in the Senate (for or against either way they’re screwed), his precious Cap & Trade is dead, dead, dead. If the Senators pursue CAp & Trade & pass it, there will not be a political massacre, but a political perfect storm to decimate the Democrats.

Nov 25, 2009 - 11:56 am 125. Pragmatist:

# 122 Mike and you are from what PLANET ????

Nov 25, 2009 - 11:58 am 126. Donna V.:

moho, BC – ah, yes, the benighted ones are out, bitterly clinging to their religion.

“Hide the Decline!” – that phrase is going to go places, I’m sure. It will serve as the theme for not only the AGW scam, but the entire Obama adminstration.

Nov 25, 2009 - 12:05 pm 127. newscaper:

Eisenhower (that supposedly dumb old golfer) really had it right:

“Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite”

Nov 25, 2009 - 12:10 pm 128. Dave Surls:

“THIS IS AD HOMINEM and is what MOHO does ALL the time.”

Yup.

As a matter of fact, that’s pretty much all he does.

One trick pony.

Nov 25, 2009 - 12:11 pm 129. baal:

Like I said… 400 lbs. And No, Using cutesy terms like “LOL” will not change that fact.

Nov 25, 2009 - 12:11 pm 130. Marc Malone:

Leftist arguments:

BC – Deny. Doesn’t disprove anything. Just a few rogue cya guys. There is all this other data that is still valid.

Nevermind that these are the guys who are the fount of the various “research” that he subsequently endorses. If this info is corrupted, then everything that was built upon this edifice is completely discredited. Everything.

He also used an analogy of a flu. Analogies are bad logic. They are useful in interpreting something else you say, so the listener can see the persepctive, but they cannot stand alone as an argument.

moho – Attack the messenger.

Let’s not look at the extent of the fraud and cover-up, and see how serious it really is. Let’s, instead, find some tenuous means of trying to discredit the author, who, btw, has rock-solid credentials. He invents a strawman, about some invented conflict of interest. He refuses to address the established fact that the AGW-ers at the CRU actually acted on their own conflict of interest, in order to continue their prestige and funding.

“He has a conflict of interest!” Um, no. His research leads him to believe AGW is a hoax. He therefore dismisses it and lives his life accordingly. He’s consistent… as opposed to someone like Algore, who lives a life specifically contrary to his avowed beliefs.

Guys, if you’re going to argue with these guys, you have to attack their illogic, not their supposed facts. Do not let them deflect, dismiss, distract, or change the question. Their methods are invalid. If you let them direct the debate, you grant them legitimacy. He who controls the debate, wins. Notice that these guys never addressed the actual particulars of the article. Thus, did they hijack the thread. In short: Do not feed the trolls!

Nov 25, 2009 - 12:12 pm 131. newscaper:

Poking around online I found this ‘per reviewed’ article in the journal Nature: (current month!), blowing the ‘unprecedented warming’ crap further out of the water (I trust ice cores more than tree rings):

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7271/full/462295a.html

Palaeoclimate: Kink in the thermometer
David Noone1

AbstractTemperature estimates derived from isotopes in polar ice cores reveal much about Earth’s past climate. According to the latest analysis, interglacial periods were rather warmer than previously thought.
For the past million years or so, the transition between glaciations and warm interglacials has been dominated by a cycle of about 100,000 years. The last warm period, the Eemian, occurred around 128,000 years ago, and from various proxy measurements it is widely accepted that temperatures then were higher than those during modern pre-industrial times.

– REST DESCRIBES HOW THEY WERE EVEN *WARMER* THAN THAT

1.David Noone is in the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, and the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA.

Nov 25, 2009 - 12:38 pm 132. lonesomecharlie:

Anthropogenic global warming turns one one fact: that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels control temperature. Analysis of the Greenland icecores shows that while the earth’s climate has made numerous whipsaw changes since the beginning of the Quaternary glaciation(2.5 million years ago)atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have changed very little. (google milankovitch cycles and the younger dryas) This data comes from physical measurements of actual ice – not computer models. For years I’ve wondered why everyone seems to be ignoring these facts. Now I know.

Nov 25, 2009 - 12:43 pm 133. Don Rodrigo:

12. Bob Bleck:

The emails prove that Mann made global warming is real…we’ve just been spelling it wrong.

Brilliant

Nov 25, 2009 - 12:44 pm 134. Warren Bonesteel:

BC, MOHO, the Atlantic, the NYT, Newsweek and others are still ignoring that big yellow thingy in the sky, I see. But that’s because the IPCC, Mann, et al, *also* ignored that big yellow thingy in the sky.

By ignoring 99% of the (hot, burning) mass in the solar system, on that basis alone, the entirety of the global warming/climate-change screed is discredited.

Which, of course, begs the question…what is the real purpose of an unfalsifiable scientific ‘hypothesis’ that ignores physics, mathematics, astronomy, geology and every other scientific theory and observation, including common sense?

Please note: by definition, any hypothesis or theory which is unfalsifiable is not science at all. It is a fraud.

Nov 25, 2009 - 12:48 pm 135. Mike Blackadder:

“There were basically a few minor issues with the way that Mann constructed the graph, and McIntyre seized on those, but once those problems were corrected, you still ended up with something like a hockey stick, but with maybe a touch of sickle.”

Wow, ‘a few minor issues with the way that Mann constructed the graph’. That’s one way of putting it. More specifically, the entire methodology behind his reconstruction was faulty and couldn’t pass simple statistical tests to verify its validity. It was also highly sensitive to a particular type of tree ‘bristlecone pines’ – stripbark type, which when combined with white noise would produce a hockey-stick every time. The main defense presented in the IPCC report surrounding this commentary was that they accepted Mann’s reconstruction anyway since his results were ‘independently’ produced elsewhere. Even though most of these reconstructions used Mann’s proxies in their reconstructions, and the fact that they wouldn’t disclose any evidence that their reconstructions are not similarly flawed. And don’t forget Briffa was able to support Mann’s result by finding 10 magic trees that could also reconstruct global temperatures for the past 1000 years. What more does it take to convince us skeptics?

By the way, the remainder of your commentary where you compare AGW to a CSI case doesn’t really make sense. What you don’t seem to realize is that the complexity of the AGW argument does not make it more robust, rather if any one piece of it proves to be untrue the entire theory falls apart. For example, many climatologists when faced with the embarrassing criticism of the paleoclimatic reconstructions then argue that there are lots of other evidence behind AGW. However, paleoclimatology is the only basis for claiming contemporary temperatures are unprecedented. If in fact today’s temperatures are normal compared with MWP and Roman Warming then doesn’t this devastate the entire AGW argument? (especially considering that there is evidence we are going back into a cycle of cooling, not warming as predicted by the IPCC models?).

Nov 25, 2009 - 12:53 pm 136. tdiinva:

Mike:

You are wrong. The data used for the latest version of the Hockey Stick came from tree rings from Siberia (See Watts up with that). Mann cherry picked 12 trees out of the sample of 256 (I think) to get his graph. When you include the entire sample then there is no trend.

Nov 25, 2009 - 12:54 pm 137. moho:

God; its like a stupidity race, and you’re all breaking the tape at once. This has gone past amusing, and entered the realm of tragedy. I weep for humanity, barnacled as it is with the dead weight of you human acne.

Nov 25, 2009 - 12:54 pm 138. Mike Blackadder:

Pragmatist at 135. That was my incomplete post (and obviously didn’t even type my whole name in yet) and posted accidentally. Don’t worry that rogue ‘Mike’ won’t be showing his martian face around these parts again!

Nov 25, 2009 - 12:59 pm 139. doug brockman:

It may be correct that the whole global warming thing is a flimflam game which destroys the world economy with an unworkable inefficient energy infrastructure.

But still, gentlemen do not read other people’s mail!

Nov 25, 2009 - 1:03 pm 140. Mike Blackadder:

tdiinva, I believe that the 12 trees you are referring to are from Keith Briffa’s reconstruction. Don’t let that pesky Mike get under your skin. He’s just been causing trouble ’round here today.

Nov 25, 2009 - 1:20 pm 141. Bear:

God; its like a stupidity race, and you’re all breaking the tape at once. This has gone past amusing, and entered the realm of tragedy. I weep for humanity, barnacled as it is with the dead weight of you human acne.

???

Are you or have you ever been a scientist, or do you solely rely on your rapier wit and distracting commentary?

Nov 25, 2009 - 1:23 pm 142. LeftCoastRightBrain:

Fred-
#63 Rigoberta Menchu. OMG. I’d forgotten all about that scam.

Thanks for the trip down memory lane.

Nov 25, 2009 - 1:25 pm 143. LeftCoastRightBrain:

Y’all remember Cold Fusion, don’t ya?

AGW is starting to look a lot like that “science”. LOL!

Nov 25, 2009 - 1:29 pm 144. David W. Lincoln:

Thank you Professor. You are upholding the honourable legacy of those who took part in the Nuremberg Tribunals, because those in the dock for climate change alarmism have to be held accountable for their actions.

Nov 25, 2009 - 1:30 pm 145. took:

I’ve never been here before, but why do all you trolls have such dirty mouths? No one else here is swearing. Only you.

And if your litmus test for truthfulness hinges on there being no ties to money making schemes or any type of financial gain from energy interests or the cash streams generated from such, then you must be saying that the “Warmists” have no such ties of their own.

That is quite an audacious assertion. Ad hominem attacks rarely work, because you can turn right around and make the same claims about the other guy.

Nov 25, 2009 - 1:33 pm 146. LeftCoastRightBrain:

Y’all remember Cold Fusion?

This AGW is starting to look a lot like that “science”. LOL!

Nov 25, 2009 - 1:36 pm 147. MaverickIII:

In addition to the fraud, these jokers didnt even take the solar cycles, cloud cover or the water vapor in to account with the computer models. All of those things and more have a bigger impact on temperature change that CO2 does. The models dont work and should be ignored period.
Why does the media and government continue to act like they mean something. I know the answer, Billions of dollars and power and control.

Nov 25, 2009 - 1:41 pm 148. moho:

Are you or have you ever been a scientist, or do you solely rely on your rapier wit and distracting commentary?

I may not be a scientist, but I certainly know when to take someone’s opinion with a grain of salt. See my comment, for something anyone should know before they take the writer of this article seriously.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-alarmism-is-underpinned-by-fraud-pjm-exclusive/#comment-60

If like others, here, you want me to explain what a conflict of interest is, then you can get to the back of the line, because I’m taking no more remedial students today.

Nov 25, 2009 - 1:45 pm 149. Anger:

Science will have to go back to looking for facts and establishing TRUTH! Niche Generator

Nov 25, 2009 - 1:55 pm 150. Anger:

Yes, this is another story for the book, Mistakes Were Made, But Not By Me, (know it?). The uncovering of this sort of mistakes is, apparently, your life’s work.

We can add this hubris of climatologists to the district attorneys who don’t allow DNA testing and the many others in the world who can’t own up to their errors.

Why don’t you join NowPublic? We could use your expertise here and I have some questions I would like to ask you.

Niche Generator

Nov 25, 2009 - 1:56 pm 151. John "birther" Samford:

Don’t get mad, get even.
Is there going to be a permanent link to this article? PJM rotates articles out fast enough so that articles that need a longer shelf life, don’t get it.
Getting even means a mass campaign to bombard elected officials with this article, as well as others.
The ENTIRE reason this problem exists is that the crooks control the information slow. That control is not complete. The WWW is still beyond the control of Socialism. For now, the Socialists at the UN are trying to seize control of the web also.
That’s a different battle, although they are all related.
The hacker that did this should get a Nobel prize.

Nov 25, 2009 - 1:59 pm 152. JohnR:

There was never any question in my mind that the politicians were lying. They saw AGW as a perfect “issue”; one they could fear-monger on in order to get morons to finance their campaigns, to turn out the vote, and to justify massive tax hikes so Leftist pols could prop up the Welfare State which is approaching bankruptcy (which all Welfare States eventually do). And the MSM? It’s overwhelming on the Left, and they hyped the issue because it advances world socialism…diverts HUGE amounts of money to centralized government with corresponding reductions in personal liberty (personal liberty being contrary to world socialism). Why should we be surprised that some scientists are greedy to the point they would cook data to advance their careers? Happens all the time!

Nov 25, 2009 - 2:02 pm 153. Bear:

Fair enough, but that disqualifies alot of the proponents. I have been involved in corporate grants as well as ‘helping’ with NSF fund requests.

If you follow the money no one has clean hands.

Greenhouse gas may be a problem someday, based on experience I don’t have any confidence that folks aren’t just making intuitive guesses and are hoping they are right. Cap and trade exchanges will just line the pockets of the pre-ordained.

Nov 25, 2009 - 2:07 pm 154. Warren Bonesteel:

So…when the IPCC invited Michael Mann to review his own work and present it to the IPCC, that’s not a conflict of interest? iow, indepedent peer-review was not allowed by the IPCC or Professor Mann…

Nov 25, 2009 - 2:09 pm 155. Spence BC:

So what will it take for us to be heard? I’ll tell you what, open revolt, because the government does not give a damn about the science, right or wrong anymore. They see opportunity for money and power. Feel powerless yet. Just wait till after Copenhagen!

Nov 25, 2009 - 2:22 pm 156. MaverickIII:

Nothing is a conflict of interest if you are left minded, such as MOHO. As long as they agree with it then it is fine to lie and cheat to get your way.
We couldn make the planet warmer if we tried. CO2 is the worst gas to have tried to hang all of this on, it really does not compute. (ha ha) The other tool of the left is try and discredit anyone with an opposing view by any means possible.

Nov 25, 2009 - 2:23 pm 157. moho:

Bear:

Greenhouse gas may be a problem someday, based on experience I don’t have any confidence that folks aren’t just making intuitive guesses and are hoping they are right.

Indeed, I don’t see any reason not to proceed with caution, in that case. What makes this conflict of interest especially egregious is the failure of PJM to note this man’s connections, or his own to state them outright. That’s simply dishonest, there is no way to argue around it.

Nov 25, 2009 - 2:26 pm 158. Warren Bonesteel:

As for the ‘ten year old’ emails…

A month ago, 27 October, 2009, someone said this about their own research:

“As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, it’s about plausibly deniable accusations.”

(Hint: A direct quote of Dr. Michael Mann.)

Nov 25, 2009 - 2:27 pm 159. MaverickIII:

Moho,

There is plenty of evidence now that shows that CO2 as a green house gas in not dangerous, but they wont put any of that in the news, man made CO2 is 1 tenth of one percent of the green house effect. Make 4 tenths if you like it doesnt matter, you dont get double the effect if you double CO2, it has a diminishing return. Explain how it is a problem.
It hasnt warmed in 11 years and has actually gone down world wide. It is expected to continue to be cooler.
It is like saying that some day wearing pant might cause cancer with no evidence that it does. The sky is not falling chicken little.

Nov 25, 2009 - 2:50 pm 160. Warren Bonesteel:

At American Thinker:

=====
data4alps.pro
IMPORTANT NOTE: The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set this “decline” has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring density variations, but have been modified to look more like the observed temperatures.

…and:

mxdgrid2ascii.pro
NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values will be much closer to observed temperatures then (sic) they should be which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful than it actually is. See Osborn et al. (2004).

=====

iow, if the techniques and data support Mann’s little theory, it’s good data…until it doesn’t support his theory, then he’ll keep the stuff that supports his theory and ignore what doesn’t, even if it’s from the same data set using the same techniques.

IOW, the theory – the computer model, isn’t predictive. iow, The theory fails utterly according to common – and global – scientific practices. When the data must be ignored or manipulated in order to validate the theory, the theory – the model – is wrong.

see also:
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1091117/jsp/nation/story_11748791.jsp
“Cold water on UN monsoon forecast models”
G.S. MUDUR

h/t Ace of Spades

Nov 25, 2009 - 2:56 pm 161. lefroy:

Moho,

please consider and recognise how facile, indeed infantile, your thought processes are, then grow up.

How does the directorship of three mining companies bear on this distinguished scientist’s integrity, even notionally?

Nov 25, 2009 - 2:58 pm 162. ReConUSMC:

We could care less what each others politics are but as Americans . What We should care much about are the cold facts here and this obvious massive cover up on Global warming …… since it will cost tax payers here (Trillions we don’t have ) .

With 8 Billion mouths to feed soon there is too much at stake to except ”only ” the far left views …. especially now in light of these huge lies by many !

It hopefully will be hard to spin this absolute fraud of all frauds when there has have been Millions of own words and thousands emailed by these very high paid top Scientist with CRU .

Their many years of out right lying and spinning the truth tactics is beyond sicking since we have been lead to believe Scientist are about the truth (black and white )… the opposite happened here one suspects for only money .

Much like the FBI agent that sold America out for $ 200.000.00 .When ask why ? He said it was just about the money .

This scam Early on appears to be the largest scam in world history .

Thank goodness Bush and Conservatives can’t be blamed ” for this con job . this is far all far leftist (for power )

How will Obama and The State Controlled Media ” handle this !

“It was just a 30 year misunderstanding “” ? Yeah Right !

Nov 25, 2009 - 3:13 pm 163. Warren Bonesteel:

Pirate’s Bay finally has a copy of the files…

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5171206

It’s all there. Conspiracy, intrigue, fraud, malfeasance. Even tax evasion. In context and in their own words.

Nov 25, 2009 - 3:18 pm 164. moho:

Lefroy. As I said, failure to understand what conflict of interest means puts you at the back of the line. Grab a dunce cap on the way around.

Nov 25, 2009 - 3:24 pm 165. Warren Bonesteel:

Moho appears to be trying the ol’ bait and switch.

ok, so the mining engineer has a conflict of interest. Fine, then. Ignore him…but then read the file I shared earlier. If he’s violated any laws, find a state’s attorney, or the AG of the US, and have the engineer in question charged with a crime and hung out to dry by his profession.

The problem under discussion is with Professor Mann’s conflicts of interest and with his probable violations of various and sundry laws in the US, alone. It is also about his violations of the Educator’s Code of Ethics and Research Ethics at Penn State. It is about his profession malfeasance and ethics.

Other individuals and groups involved are also party to conspiracy to commit tax evasion and fraud. It’s all in the files, in their own words and nothing is taken out of context.

Nov 25, 2009 - 3:52 pm 166. Donna V.:

newscaper quoted Eisenhower:

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite”

That was from Eisenhower’s famous speech about the military-industrial complex. I have known leftists who threw the “military-industrial” part at me, but funnily enough, they never mentioned the warning about how “the scientific-technological elite” could become corrupted for political purposes.

The old general was a prophet.

Nov 25, 2009 - 3:54 pm 167. moho:

That’s my only point Warren Rubberbone!

While you’re at it, I would also ask why the front page of PJM is literally screaming this story on five or six different posts at a time every day. It reminds me of men with noisy motorcycles hiding a lack of fundamental gravitas in the underwear department. It certainly is what was meant when organs such as this were dubbed “noise machine”.

Nov 25, 2009 - 4:00 pm 168. Alan C:

This is a joint statement issued in 2007 by the National Academies of Science of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States:

“It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken.”

This is a joint statement issued in 2009 by the National Academies of Science of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States:

“Climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated; global CO2 emissions since 2000 have been higher than even the highest predictions, Arctic sea ice has been melting at rates much faster than predicted, and the rise in the sea level has become more rapid.” and

“Climate change and sustainable energy supply are crucial challenges for the future of humanity. It is essential that world leaders agree on the emission reductions needed to combat negative consequences of anthropogenic climate change”.

Nov 25, 2009 - 4:01 pm 169. DownUnderTransplant:

I cannot argue the merits of global warming on a scientific level, let alone meaningfully comprehend it, because I am not a scientist. What I am left with then is to ensure that a process of scientific discovery is pursued and challenged at every step. I applaude Mr. Pimer’s attempt educate the common man on global warming, but let’s not confuse this with scientific debate. Unfortunately Mr. Pimer doesn’t or is unable to see it this way; as a result, he is not furthering our understanding of global warming but rather politicizing it.

The manifestation of Pimer’s misdeed is evidenced by the number of posters who claim that their is a conspiracy at hand. This is not scientific debate; it’s political demogogery. (Memo to conspiracy nuts: a conspiracy requires a motive. Where’s the motive?)

Nov 25, 2009 - 4:23 pm 170. Commuter:

161. lefroy:

“How does the directorship of three mining companies bear on this distinguished scientist’s integrity, even notionally?”

It doesn’t. It is a recognition of success in his field and adds to his credibility.

Repeatedly calling this a conflict of interest without any attempt to explain his rationale for saying so, or offer any reason why it would invalidate the author’s analysis, is just a typical moho duck and cover. It allows the blithering idiot to gratuitously dismiss an article he isn’t able or even equipped to understand or discuss, but still garner himself some attention.

Addressing this tool, moho, directly is no more likely to elicit any logical response than addressing a tool in your garden shed would.

Nov 25, 2009 - 4:35 pm 171. Mr Lucky:

137. moho.

“God; its like a stupidity race, and you’re all breaking the tape at once.”

Didn’t your science have the data cooked to show that moho crossed the line right out of the pod? Way ahead.

“This has gone past amusing, and entered the realm of tragedy”

Like those muggers you rolled. Right?

” I weep for humanity,,,”

Liar.

Nov 25, 2009 - 4:35 pm 172. Mr Lucky:

137. moho.

“God; its like a stupidity race, and you’re all breaking the tape at once.”

Didn’t your science have the data cooked to show that moho crossed the line right out of the pod? Way ahead.

“This has gone past amusing, and entered the realm of tragedy”

Like those muggers you rolled. Right?

“I weep for humanity…”

Liar.

Nov 25, 2009 - 4:37 pm 173. Warren Bonesteel:

Well, it’s readily apparent that Moho and friends aren’t interested in reading the documents or in arguing the merits of the case, let alone discussions about the science. They’d rather engage in silly syllogisms, sorry sophistry and reprehensible rhetoric.

Nov 25, 2009 - 4:51 pm 174. moho:

Commuter:

It doesn’t. It is a recognition of success in his field and adds to his credibility.

LOL. You had some pretty fierce competition, but that has to be by far the dumbest statement made today. Perhaps all year. Yes, indeed, the same kind of added credibility that Kenneth Lay had when advising Dick Cheney on energy issues. My god, the caustic stupid emanating from that post actually singed my eyelashes a little.

Nov 25, 2009 - 4:54 pm 175. moho:

Mr Lucky. Thanks for reprinting that post. It was quite a nice example of withering dismissal.

Nov 25, 2009 - 4:55 pm 176. Tom:

Now all the scientific work that has been done on Easter Island comes into play. This is where the unwashed slaves realized that the long ears only wanted the best for themselves. Right?

Nov 25, 2009 - 5:01 pm 177. Mike Blackadder:

Moho, let me get this straight. You’re not much of a scientist, and you agree with Bear that all this talk about the harm of CO2 is really just folks making intuitive guesses. But you still spent the whole day trying to convince us that the author is a fraud. Don’t you have anything better to do with your time?

Nov 25, 2009 - 5:11 pm 178. moho:

Mike Blackadder:

I spent about fifteen minutes total getting you people to try to think critically. No matter what you believe, an industry insider whose financial well-being is affected by cap and trade legislation throughout the world, is the last person you should be getting your information from on this issue. That seems intuitive, but I suppose I wasn’t factoring in the unbelievable stupidity of people who read this drivel.

Do I have better things to do with my time? Well, I could have spent that fifteen minutes stepping in a dog turd and then trying to get it off the sole of my shoe. That would have been a better thing to do with my time, now that you mention it.

Nov 25, 2009 - 5:34 pm 179. SRL:

Criminology ids my bailiwick,

After looking at the e-mails which have come out I don’t think any half-way competent LEO and prosecutor would have any trouble making a case of conspiracy to commit fraud. These guys took public money and got together to produce an inferior product, one which has the potential of adversely affecting the livelihoods of billions since governmental policies would be based on it. What is more, they conspired to hide their egregious conduct.

As a result all their research is suspect and can’t be trusted. All research built upon theirs is further tainted and unreliable. Thus, the entire foundation for AGW has just been tumbled to nothing like a house of cards.

Personally, those folks deserve to be prosecuted. But considering how invested governments are in AGW, i won’t hold my breath.

Nov 25, 2009 - 5:42 pm 180. Sherlock:

Environmentalism, and its ugly brother, liberalism, should be destroyed in our next election. Anyone who votes for those who claim to be either, should have their heads examined, of just have themselves admitted to a mental hospital. Owl Gorey should be prosecuted just like Bernie Madoff. Carbon Credits he has been selling are also a fraud. He can keep the hollywood award and the nutty n-o-b-e-l prize, as all these people are in the same frame of mind. Prosecute the scientist and never let them have access to the taxpayer dollars again. And if President Obama, signs any kind of agreement providing money to the UN for global warming studies, impeach him.

Nov 25, 2009 - 5:42 pm 181. richln:

i don’t believe this loser any more than i believe any of the others – ugly narrow-minded, paranoid bigots, and of course white male

Nov 25, 2009 - 5:46 pm 182. M. Report:

20 years of historical perspective;
Selected summary observations from Dr. Pournelle’s
BBS/Blog on BIX, the Byte Information Exchange:

Ancestors of Trolls existed, but pushed their
personal agendas; Paid political propaganda
was not cost-effective against small groups
of professionals versed in rational analysis and
proof; That had to wait for a larger, less
sophisticated audience on the Web, which I am
happy to see cannot be fooled forever: Congrats !

Right/Left debate was ongoing, and analysis
thereof included a prediction that as experience
invalidated Left positions, their arguments would
shift further to the left, abandoning their more
centrist, rational supporters in favor of Left-
Wingnut True Believers; Anyone who cannot see
that this has happened is suffering from hysterical
blindness. The recent increase in hysteria is due
to the incorrect perception that it is the End Game,
time to go all-in, winner takes all, permanently;
What is coming is Hard Times, a Right Reformation,
and a return to reason, which will drive the LWN
_completely_ around the bend. Watch your backs. :>

P.S.
Cold fusion was condemned for Heresy, more than
lack of reproducibility. It turns out that with
careful experimental procedure, the results can
be duplicated. The most important point is not
the power storage?generation potential, but that
the observed results require changes to theory,
which in turn may point to other discoveries in
physics; It _is_ what you know, that is not true,
which bites you in the end.

Compare to the Polywater hypothesis, whose
initial experiments gave reproducible positive
results, but contained a hidden flaw, which the
experimenters themselves found and reported,
disproving their own work.

Keep in mind some old news, newly confirmed by
the AGW debates: Cold comes faster that heat,
10 years to crop failure/famine, 100 years to
glaciation; _That_ is worth watching, and
planning for.

Nov 25, 2009 - 5:57 pm 183. Donna V.:

I spent about fifteen minutes total getting you people to try to think critically.

LOL! Getting critical thinking tips from moho is like getting diet tips from Rosie O’Donnell or abstinence advice from Madonna.

No matter what you believe, an industry insider whose financial well-being is affected by cap and trade legislation throughout the world

You must be referring to Al Gore, who is much, much million richer now than he was in 2000, because he’s spent that time fleecing credulous dopes like moho. Fat Al leaves a bigger carbon footprint in a month than most Americans do in a decade. Why doesn’t moho question Fat Al’s creds?

Poor little moho. A wretched little denier, clinging desperately to his (new) religion. He left the Islam hoax and swallowed an equally ridiculous load of BS, under the impression that he was being “progressive” and “enlightened.” Now his new religion is going down the tubes too. What a sad little fellow.

Nov 25, 2009 - 6:39 pm 184. Mr Lucky:

178. moho

“Do I have better things to do with my time? Well, I could have spent that fifteen minutes stepping in a dog turd and then trying to get it off the sole of my shoe. That would have been a better thing to do with my time, now that you mention it.”

It seems Pee Wee moho has once again has stepped in his box of chocolates. I guess that warm goo between his fingers could be mistaken for global warming. He does have the whole moho world in his hands now. Pee Wee moho as shoe shiner. How… ironic.

Going to Disneyland with Now and Then? Is Mr. President is sending that turkey there? Part of the Stimulus.

Think of it. Pee Wee moho staring in It’s a Small World. Perfect fit.

Nov 25, 2009 - 6:40 pm 185. Graham (Melb, Australia):

You say: “the colorless, odorless, non-poisonous gas called carbon dioxide did not drive past climates. Carbon dioxide is plant food, not a pollutant”

Milk is food, spill it into a river it is a pollutant. Water is vital to all life, too much we drown; Oxygen is vital to all life, too much we die. Saying carbon dioxide is not a pollutant in the context of this debate is just purile nonsense and it debases your own credibility to put forward such a nonsense.

Nov 25, 2009 - 6:51 pm 186. lefroy:

Moho:

“Lefroy. As I said, failure to understand what conflict of interest means puts you at the back of the line. Grab a dunce cap on the way around.”

Well, let’s see who’s the dunce. How does a directorship of a “mining company” raise a conflict of interest? Plimer’s directorships are: Ivanhoe (copper, gold, uranium); CBH Resources (zinc, lead and silver); and Kefi Minerals (gold). I got this info in 5 minutes research on the website of the Australian Securities Exchange.

Who’s the dunce? How does mining for copper, gold, lead, silver and uranium logically conflict with being an AGW skeptic? (Uranium – the reverse!!)

If Plimer were a coal miner or oil prospector, your suggestion of an undeclared “conflict” may have some merit. But no, the half-educated person that you are, you think “AGW skepticism – director of mining companies – conflict!”, without subjecting your childish logic to the most basic scrutiny.

Go and adjust your thinking, sonny, before you try to mix it around here.

Nov 25, 2009 - 6:56 pm 187. bill:

So you have governments that financed these charlatans through grants who in turn hoped to TAX the people to death to prevent what never was in the first place. The only problem is they couldn’t figure out a way to tax a lack of sunspots that caused the cooling.

Some people need to go to jail.

Nov 25, 2009 - 7:01 pm 188. greg oakes (Canberra):

Ian Plimer’s arguements have been shot down in flames a number of times. Here’s a link that succinctly deals it:
http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91

But let’s step back a minute and look at the debate from a slightly different angle – WhoCan Afford To Be Wrong?

What happens if the world does something to counter climate change, but actually didn’t need to? A slight sense of embaressment coupled with the fact that we have decoupled our economies from a rapidly depleting and highly polluting fuel source (which just happens to be centralised in some of the more politically volatile regions of the world), we have made our economies lest wasteful and more efficint, we will have created new economies and jobs based on the use and deployment of renewable energies, etc, etc, etc. Basically – not a lot of downside.

What are the implications if Climate Change is real, but we do nothing about it? Probably more than a slight case of embarrasment – how about a rise in global sea levels resulting in massive population displacement, radical changes to the ocean chemistry caused by acidification that kills of whole species critical in the food chain, dramatic changes in the ecosphere leading to new diseases etc, etc, etc….

Which risk do you want to take? What conversation do you want to have with your grandchildren?

Nov 25, 2009 - 7:18 pm 189. moho:

Donna:
Getting critical thinking tips from moho is like getting diet tips from Rosie O’Donnell or abstinence advice from Madonna.

Trust me, coming from you this is like trumpeting praise. Seriously, I hope you understand I’m being perfectly honest when I say that I’ve never encountered someone as stupid as you outside this posting space.

Nov 25, 2009 - 7:19 pm 190. moho:

Lefoy [sigh] I already dealt with this:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-alarmism-is-underpinned-by-fraud-pjm-exclusive/comment-page-4/#comment-60

You did ask a valid question, however. You are the dunce.

Nov 25, 2009 - 7:21 pm 191. moho:

Go and adjust your thinking, sonny, before you try to mix it around here.

Sorry; just caught that part and burst out laughing.

Nov 25, 2009 - 7:22 pm 192. DownUnderTransplant:

Warren Bonesteel wrote:

“Well, it’s readily apparent that Moho and friends aren’t interested in reading the documents or in arguing the merits of the case, let alone discussions about the science. They’d rather engage in silly syllogisms, sorry sophistry and reprehensible rhetoric.”

Just curious, Bonesteel, are you a scientist with expertise in a field related to global warming? The documents to which you refer, have they undergone scrutiny by the scientific community? Have you ever read articles from reputable scientific journals that support the global warming argument?

Perhaps you can rightfully claim to be a scientific expert on this issue. But if you are, why are you wasting your breath trying to convince posters who do not possess your scientific expertise, and therefore can never understand your position? It’s pointless.

But then again, you probably aren’t a scientist. Consequently, stop the silly pretensions of engaging in a scientific debate.
Nov 25, 2009 – 4:51 pm

Nov 25, 2009 - 7:30 pm 193. B2slim:

I am so Thankful for HACKERS!

and may we have many more!

Nov 25, 2009 - 7:46 pm 194. SB:

This is over the top. What concerns me is the reference to the Hadley Centre.

The organisation that Phil Jones heads is the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Most of the leaked documents some from this institution.

The Hadley Centre is a different organisation hundreds of miles away in Exeter. It appears they have been defamed in this article.

Nov 25, 2009 - 7:55 pm 195. Matt:

This is an unbelievably flawed article and reads like a blog entry on a Creationist website. Geological proxies for past CO2 are unreliable. But even so, no one says that CO2 is the ONLY cause of palaeoclimate fluctuations. Just one factor. Further all the claims about “massaged, numbers were fudged, diagrams were biased, there was destruction of data after freedom of information requests, and there was refusal to submit taxpayer-funded data for independent examination” are based on out of context quote-mines (a Creationist specialty). Nothing of the sort happened. No data was deleted etc etc. I’m no greenie – I’m a petroleum geologist – but THIS article is fraud. Disgusting.

Nov 25, 2009 - 7:59 pm 196. ratskeller:

This is all very interesting but my question for the scientists is, are all those dinosaur farts what caused them to die off in a mass extinction?

Nov 25, 2009 - 8:10 pm 197. DaveG:

Mr. Plimer, I would like to thank you for your informative and based-in-fact-not-Al-Gore-fiction Heaven+Earth.

It is a relief to see that not everyone is taken in by the ETS and Climate Change alarmist rubbish. I found it amusing a while back when you were on ABC Breakfast, and Joe OBrien did his best to trip you up, much to his dismay.

We can’t let clowns like this get away with deceiving the public for money.

Nov 25, 2009 - 8:28 pm 198. Donna V.:

So a complete dolt thinks I’m stupid! Why, thank you, moho, I’m flattered.

Again, why is Plimer’s ties suspect and the fact that Al (“the earth’s core is millions of degrees Fahrenheit!”)Gore has enriched himself to the tune of 125 million by milking dopey environmentalists for all they are worth not a problem for you?

What a complete doof you are. But always a pleasure to laugh at.

Nov 25, 2009 - 8:45 pm 199. E:

Wow, moho. How much are you paid per hour for posting this endless stream of bullcrap? Is it minimum wage? Do you get dental? I’d love to know who signs your paycheck. Organizing for America? Moveon.org? Soros, the Great and Terrible?

It’s been really entertaining watching you disappear up your own ass throughout this thread.

Folks, moho has “contributed” 20% of the posts on this thread – without advancing any real ideas or content of any kind. Perhaps PJM should start charging him for advertising space?

You can’t argue with a troll. And as Jonathan Swift so wisely said, “it is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

Nov 25, 2009 - 8:52 pm 200. Eric Sykes:

Pilmer has been shown to be completely ignorant when it comes to global climate. His book has so many clear errors of fact it is just laughable that it ever got published. His credibility in any kind of science is simply shot to pieces. Nobody takes him seriously, not even in his own field any more. If you are someone who thinks Pilmers’ actually a decent human being then unfortunately you are going to have to think again. At worst he’s a vicious manipulator in the pay of the polluters, or at best he’s a complete moron, not much of a choice I know..but it’s all you’ve got.

Nov 25, 2009 - 8:52 pm 201. Pragmatist:

# 185 Au contraire Graham (Melb, Australia): Saying CO2 IS a pollutant expose YOU as an uneducated fool and a blind worshiper at the shrine of GORE. But just to humour you tell us at what level does CO2 stop being plant food and a vital part of the life cycle and become a POLLUTANT then tell what the level of CO2 is in the atmosphere now then tell us just how much of that CO2 is MAN made. We will then know how much MAN made CO2 can be emitted to have an effect. BTW detailed explanation too of how and why the earth has been COOLING for the past 12 years even as MANS CO2 emissions have CONTINUED to rise. Waiting with bated breath for your DETAILED and reasoned answer.

Nov 25, 2009 - 8:56 pm 202. Pragmatist:

# 191 MOHO wrote ‘Sorry; just caught that part and burst out laughing.’

Conclusive proof that small things amuse SMALL minds

Nov 25, 2009 - 8:58 pm 203. Pragmatist:

#152 Johnr wrote
‘They saw AGW as a perfect “issue”; one they could fear-monger on in order to get morons to finance their campaigns, to turn out the vote, and to justify massive tax hikes so Leftist pols could prop up the Welfare State which is approaching bankruptcy (which all Welfare States eventually do).;

How very very true Johnr and you dont need to look very far for the morons just look at the posts of the AGW SCAM defenders on this blog alone and their lack of intelligence and reasoning SCREAMS out.

Nov 25, 2009 - 9:12 pm 204. chris burns:

Ian’s book was a real eye-opener! To learn that C02 is not a major(or even minor) driver of avg global temperature was quite shocking after a decade of Al Gore’s hockey stick model being jammed down our throats. Thank You for what you have done to help expose this Farce. I am grateful to you and to McIntyre and McKitrick as well for your courage. I will recommend your book to all of my family and friends.

Nov 25, 2009 - 9:23 pm 205. Chris Burns:

“The emails prove that Mann made global warming is real…we’ve just been spelling it wrong”—from above.

BRILLIANT ! LOL! I wish I had thought of that one.

Nov 25, 2009 - 9:31 pm 206. ic:

14. BC, Garbage in garbage out. The greatest scientists can interpret, postulate, and conclude; whatever they did was based on garbage data.

If Einstein had based his Relativity theory on junk data, he would still be wrong.

Nov 25, 2009 - 9:46 pm 207. Mojoman:

Why were they so reluctant to release the “climate models”? You know, the ones that Michael Mann, Phil Jones, et. al. came up with and won’t release?? Scientists do this all the time – they come up with a theory and subject it to scrutiny from their peers in order to prove or disprove a theory. Why won’t AlGore debate anyone on the issue? Why has the scientific world turned upside down??? Am I the only sane one around here? Or maybe I’m the insane one….

Nov 25, 2009 - 10:22 pm 208. Toon:

Yes, I am angry, very angry, but is anything going to change as a result of this revelation? There’s barely a word in the mainstream media, despite poll after poll showing the majority of people don’t believe in man-made global warming. I can only hope that more & more respected people come forward publicly until the tables are turned on this mass fraud.

Nov 25, 2009 - 10:52 pm 209. Max:

Who Can Afford To Be Wrong?
Greg Oakes,

You fail to consider another possible scenario: What happens if we decimate the world economy in an effort to stop global warming, but it happens anyway, either because the caps don’t have the intended effect or because the warming wasn’t caused by man-made CO2 after all?

This outcome is unarguably the worse of everything.

Nov 25, 2009 - 11:28 pm 210. Nick:

So,Ian Plimer is now rivalling Monckton of Brenchley in the spittle-flecked nonsense department. Which nutter to choose for the seniors club talk,I wonder?

Nov 25, 2009 - 11:39 pm 211. Parad E. Makewater:

Copenhagen Post—December 7, 2009

Climate Meetings Postponed

Al Gore plane grounded by freak snowstorm in Rome.

Nov 25, 2009 - 11:52 pm 212. Thomas Fink:

“What conversation do you want to have with your grandchildren?”
Your children and your grandchildren will have other things to worry about than global warming. Even you will get a chance to have a taste of what real poverty means. When all your Dollars will not pay you a pound of rice. And this situation is really manmade. Made by the same political powers who brought you environmentalism with its latest myth of manmade global warming. The aim behind all their movements is very simple: destroy capitalism. Hopefully we get to stop this early enough so that you have a chance at all to tell your grandchildren something outside the Gulag where moho will apply as guard so he can afford his daily banana.

Nov 26, 2009 - 12:12 am 213. Wombat:

If Prof. Plimer was a director of a coal company I would be worried but his is **not**.

As one of Australia’s foremost geologists it is unsurprising that he is a director of some mining companies. These companies are Copper, Lead/Zinc & Gold/Silver miners/explorers.

ETS will only materially, negatively impact Coal, Aluminium miners.

Climate Change due to CO2 is a political fraud to avoid the hard issues that need to be addressed : rainforest clearing, pollution of our oceans, over fishing (this is much much more immediately critical but nothing is done!), and urban/farming encroachment on biodiversity.

CO2 ETS will only enrich the investment bankers & consultants… the fact that one of the benefits will be financial derivatives should be a very clear warning that ETS will be a very damaging disaster!

Nov 26, 2009 - 1:22 am 214. ic:

212. Thomas Fink:
“Your children and your grandchildren will have other things to worry about than global warming.”

Most probably the coming little ice age. They scamed about that in the 70’s.

Son of Gore will get a Nobel warning about the little ice age.

Nov 26, 2009 - 1:43 am 215. Pragmatist:

# 200 Eric Sykes: Was the name of a very funny UK comedian seems like YOU share some of his attributes . While YOU are not funny at all he was deaf too which most probably accounts for your inability to hear the OVERWHELMING cries of FRAUD and SCAM directed at the worshipers at the shrine of of the FALSE profit GORE.

Nov 26, 2009 - 2:42 am 216. sub:

I’m new here. So many of you, all of obvious intelligence, are sidetracked from the stunning and overwhelming news from Britain and drawn into a false debate about debate. Why? In response to the news of scientific forgery, a person of any ethic/credibility could do nothing but hang their head in silence. This is like cornering a rodent; teeth bared, nowhere to flee….

Nov 26, 2009 - 2:53 am 217. Rod:

Who really knows what the long-term climate is doing? Probably not anybody. There certainly is no justification for use of presumed climate change to enact draconian economic legislation. I know this is anticdotal, but three years ago we had a record snow fall on my cabin in the Oregon cascades. Also, I have been an
Abalone fisherman for nearly 60 years, and I don’t see one inch of tide level changes since I was a young kid.

But I have seen a severe drop in many water bird species and this is a tragedy. The causes are human impacts by not climate related.

Nov 26, 2009 - 5:23 am 218. Sebastian Shaw:

The real goal for Global Warming, Global Cooling has nothing to do with science, but to impose yet more taxes & the growth of government; therefore, expand the power of the boobs in Washington DC. The Leftists only have this chance to turn Cap & Trade into law; however, in the middle of a recession, Cap & Trade (Crap & Tax)–along with the disastrous ObamaCare–with result in a DEPRESSION! Do the liberals care? No. They want it like a drug addict. It’s pathetic, obscene, & disgusting.

Nov 26, 2009 - 5:53 am 219. Bill Smith:

Wow, this thread reads like the World Weekly News. I’ve never seen so many conspiracy theories in one place before! The only alarmists in this debate are the transnational corporations who are paying out the nose, “perhaps IMF cash” to get you pack animals to believe this garbage. Be an individual, think for yourself! There is manufaturing, exporting, technological advances involved in this, and the “market” meaning huge global conglomorates are not going to be “affected” or influenced to change anything, even if it is for the better of the nation. Either provide them with disencentives or create a governmental program like NASA. I cannot wait to see the batboy responses to that!

Nov 26, 2009 - 5:55 am 220. moho:

Donna:Again, why is Plimer’s ties suspect and the fact that Al (”the earth’s core is millions of degrees Fahrenheit!”)Gore has enriched himself to the tune of 125 million by milking dopey environmentalists for all they are worth not a problem for you?

If you believe they’re suspect, prove your case. But according to the logic you’re presenting here, you’d be proving my point about Plimer as well. No one’s tried to stop you; I could give two farts about Gore. If Gore went t-up tomorrow it would have no more bearing on climate science than if this dooshwaddle did. I already said what I think about your intellect, stop trying so hard to prove I’m right, and instead prove your own points.

Nov 26, 2009 - 6:08 am 221. moho:

Fink:Made by the same political powers who brought you environmentalism with its latest myth of manmade global warming.

This after half trillion yearly deficits for seven years under the Bush administration, and a full trillion in Bush’s last term. China already owns the majority of our debt you idiot. Do you even know that? They’re now majority stake-holder in your country; that happened while you were jerking your pud to the fantasy of endless war against Jihad, learning to spell socialism and photoshopping racist pictures of Obama’s wife. I blame the suicide gene.

Nov 26, 2009 - 6:26 am 222. Fred Beloit:

From the American Thinker blog dated today, after a detailed analysis a concise description of the present situation:

“Bottom line: CRU’s evidence is now irrevocably tainted. As such, all assumptions based on that evidence must now be reevaluated and readjudicated. And all policy based on those counterfeit assumptions must also be reexamined.
Gotcha. We know they’ve been lying all along, and now we can prove it. It’s time to bring sanity back to this debate. ”

Ball in your court, Moho. Unfortunately you can’t play it. Game, set, match to the whistle blowers and the conservative bloggers.
Happy Thanksgiving, you sly little anti-American propagandist you.

Nov 26, 2009 - 7:37 am 223. Thomas Fink:

“China already owns the majority of our debt you idiot. Do you even know that?”
Yes, I happen to know about that, sweetheart. Also that your great dude the mighty Obama wants to sell them some trillions more. But they liked them dollars more, when Bush was selling. Now they think that toilet tissue would be a better investment. Have heard the news? Dubai is broke. Some place less to hide for a non practicing muslim alcoholic. Time for your Haldol before the voices come. Huh, huh.

Nov 26, 2009 - 7:39 am 224. Anonymous:

221:

It’s Thanksgiving. Take your meds and head down to the shelter for some free turkey. Bring your strawmen so you have someone to sit with.

Nov 26, 2009 - 7:58 am 225. moho:

Fink

Yes, I happen to know about that, sweetheart. Also that your great dude the mighty Obama wants to sell them some trillions more.

Yeah, the question is, where was your anger then? Idiot. The anti-Islamic stuff doesn’t bother me, by the way, but I do get quite a laugh over how ham-handed your bigotry is. Learn to craft an insult, dolt and so you don’t have to rely on tired and recycled stereotypes that wouldn’t bother an imam on Friday.

Nov 26, 2009 - 8:07 am 226. Anonymous:

Sorry, I meant to write 223:

Nov 26, 2009 - 8:15 am 227. Thomas Fink:

Ach Gott, moho, it is hard to be angry with someone who seems not really to know who he is. When Obama was bowing to this old Japanese I saw the abandoned child who had so early to learn to please and manipulate the grown ups around him. Something sad is about him and about you. Have a nice Thanksgiving.

Nov 26, 2009 - 8:30 am 228. Anonymous:

226: moho

No, I meant 221: I’ll include the name from now on to prevent any confusion.

Nov 26, 2009 - 8:32 am 229. Mr Lucky:

221. moho.

Fink: Made by the same political powers who brought you environmentalism with its latest myth of manmade global warming.

Yeah, like global cooling, acid rain, alar, radium therapy and sugar.

“…that happened while you were jerking your pud to the fantasy of endless war against Jihad…”

Pee Wee moho has experience with the pud thing. I heard you got busted in a movie house again while viewing an Inconvenient Truth. Must be when that Inconvenient Truth is right in your hand.

“…and photoshopping racist pictures of Obama’s wife.”

No need to photoshop there. Why waste your time? Michelle’s talent has gravitated towards 1960’s checkerboard square and 1930’s Harlem tapestries.

“I blame the suicide gene.”

Profound. I Sing the Body Ekectric!

Pee Wee moho must blame something. he is never at fault. Except – Are you Michelle’s fashion guru? No wonder… Did you pick those size 14 clown shoes?

Happy Thanksgiving Pee Wee. Did Now and Then make the cut? Gobble gobble Goebbels.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it…”

Repeat this over and over Pee Wee, “Pee Wee moho is Big”. Now get your one friend in the mirror chanting too. Your Christmas present to yourself!

Nov 26, 2009 - 8:37 am 230. Ding:

#213

Right on. GW is bogus and is the least of our worries.

Bottom line, there are too many of us. Time to start voting people of the planet.

Nov 26, 2009 - 8:40 am 231. Anonymous:

Who’s impersonating me? Another “Anonymous”? I find that highly unlikely. In any case, I meant 223. Cut the crap, whoever you are.

Nov 26, 2009 - 8:47 am 232. Anonymous:

231: moho

Only had a few minutes to take a look at some posts and comment threads,now it’s off to the Football game and a family Thanksgiving. I’d offer you a ride to the shelter on my way in the spirit of the day, but I don’t think there’s room for all your strawmen and I know you don’t go anywhere without them. Plus I just cleaned the back seat, and you being off your meds and all. On that note, it might be best for you to avoid the shelter today.

Best you just spend your day on PJM. I’m sure people with lives to lead will still find a moment to drop in off and on and you provide a service. On this day of giving thanks, I’m thankful that I’m not moho.

Nov 26, 2009 - 9:06 am 233. Anonymous:

228, 231
Say, how do you two get that way. Why I am the real Anonymous. Only a mastermind like me could have come up with this creative moniker, in 1958 as a matter of fact. Prior to that I used Name Withheld By Request of the Writer. I’m famous all over the internet. I said 221 and I meant it. Now double cut the double crap.

Nov 26, 2009 - 9:13 am 234. Tom:

Why were the principles
created?
The game is communicating
climate change; the rules will
help us win it.
These principles were created as
part of the UK Climate Change
Communications Strategy, an
evidence-based strategy aiming
to change public attitudes
towards climate change in the
UK. This is a ‘short version’
of a far longer document of
evidence that can be found at
http://www.defra.gov.uk.
There is plenty of evidence
relating to attitudes towards and
behaviour on climate change,
general environmental behaviour
change and the whole issue
of sustainable development
communication. As we reviewed
the research for these principles,
one ‘überprinciple’ emerged:
“Changing attitudes
towards climate change is
not like selling a particular
brand of soap – it’s like
convincing someone to
use soap in the first place.”
At first glance, some of the
principles may seem counterintuitive
to those who have
been working on sustainable
development or climate change
communications for many years.
Some confront dearly cherished
beliefs about what works; a few
even seem to attack the values
or principles of sustainable
development itself.
However, these principles are a
first step to using sophisticated
behaviour change modelling and
comprehensive evidence from
around the world to change
attitudes towards climate change.
We need to think radically, and
the Rules of the Game are a sign
that future campaigns will not be
‘business as usual’. This is a truly
exciting moment.
For the full evidence for these rules, and the climate change
communications strategy itself, please visit: http://www.defra.gov.uk
For the new UK sustainable development strategy please visit:
http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk

Nov 26, 2009 - 9:24 am 235. Pragmatist:

Here’s one for all you moonbats still stuck in Bush Bashing mode.

Obama Shatters Spending Record for First-Year Presidents

The federal government spent $3.5 trillion during President Obama’s first year in office. This far exceeds the spending for any other first-year president.

President Obama has shattered the budget record for first-year presidents — spending nearly double what his predecessor did when he came into office and far exceeding the first-year tabs for any other U.S. president in history.

In fiscal 2009 the federal government spent $3.52 trillion — $2.8 trillion in 2000 dollars, which sets a benchmark for comparison. That fiscal year covered the last three-and-a-half months of George W. Bush’s term and the first eight-and-a-half months of Obama’s.

That price tag came with a $1.4 trillion deficit, nearly $1 trillion more than last year. The overall budget was about a half-trillion more than Bush’s for 2008, his final full fiscal year in office.

Click here to read FOXBusiness.com’s Elizabeth MacDonald describe what the interest on the debt can buy.

That’s a big increase. But compared with other presidents’ first years in office, Obama is running circles around them.

Bush spent $1.8 trillion in 2001, according to government budget figures that have been adjusted for inflation based on 2000 dollars. Using the same formula, former President Bill Clinton spent $1.6 trillion in 1993.

The last president to clock in under $1 trillion was Gerald Ford, who logged a $982 billion budget in 1975. Post-war Dwight Eisenhower even brought Uncle Sam’s tab down to $556 billion in his first year, 1953.

Obama’s first-year budget, adjusted for inflation, is about five times that. His 2009 budget is also close to 21 percent of that for Clinton’s eight years in office — Clinton’s spending added up to $13.5 trillion over his two full terms. Bush spent $16.8 trillion from 2001-2008.

Nov 26, 2009 - 9:33 am 236. Tom:

new way of
thinking
Once we’ve eliminated the myths, there is room for some new
ideas. These principles relate to some of the key ideas emerging
from behaviour change modelling for sustainable development:
5. Climate change must be ‘front of mind’ before
persuasion works
Currently, telling the public to take notice of climate change is
as successful as selling tampons to men. People don’t realise
(or remember) that climate change relates to them.
6. Use both peripheral and central processing
Attracting direct attention to an issue can change attitudes, but
peripheral messages can be just as effective: a tabloid snapshot
of Gwyneth Paltrow at a bus stop can help change attitudes to
public transport.
7. Link climate change mitigation to positive
desires/aspirations
Traditional marketing associates products with the aspirations of
their target audience. Linking climate change mitigation to home
improvement, self-improvement, green spaces or national pride are
all worth investigating.
8. Use transmitters and social learning
People learn through social interaction, and some people are
better teachers and trendsetters than others. Targeting these
people will ensure that messages seem more trustworthy and are
transmitted more effectively.
9. Beware the impacts of cognitive dissonance
Confronting someone with the difference between their attitude and
their actions on climate change will make them more likely to change
their attitude than their actions.

Nov 26, 2009 - 9:33 am 237. Tom:

Linking policy and communications
These principles clearly deserve a separate section. All the evidence
is clear – sometimes aggressively so – that ‘communications in the
absence of policy’ will precipitate the failure of any climate change
communications campaign right from the start:
10. Everyone must use a clear and consistent
explanation of climate change
The public knows that climate change is important, but is less clear
on exactly what it is and how it works.
11. Government policy and communications on climate
change must be consistent
Don’t ‘build in’ inconsistency and failure from the start.
audience
principles
In contrast to the myths, this section suggests some principles that
do work. These principles are likely to lead directly to a set of general
messages, although each poses a significant implementation challenge:
12. Create ‘agency’ for combating climate change
Agency is created when people know what to do, decide for
themselves to do it, have access to the infrastructure in which to act,
and understand that their contribution is important.
13. Make climate change a ‘home’ not ‘away’ issue
Climate change is a global issue, but we will feel its impact at home –
and we can act on it at home.
14. Raise the status of climate change mitigation
behaviours
Research shows that energy efficiency behaviours can make you
seem poor and unattractive. We must work to overcome these
emotional assumptions.
15. Target specific groups
A classic marketing rule, and one not always followed by climate
change communications from government and other sources.

Nov 26, 2009 - 9:36 am 238. Tom:

style
principles
These principles lend some guidance on the evidence of stylistic
themes that have a high chance of success:
16. Create a trusted, credible, recognised voice on
climate change
We need trusted organisations and individuals that the media can
call upon to explain the implications of climate change to the
UK public.
17. Use emotions and visuals
Another classic marketing rule: changing behaviour by
disseminating information doesn’t always work, but emotions
and visuals usually do.
effective
management
These principles are drawn primarily from the experience of others,
both in their successes and in the problems they faced:
18. The context affects everything
The prioritisation of these principles must be subject to ongoing
assessments of the UK climate change situation.
19. The communications must be sustained over time
All the most successful public awareness campaigns have been
sustained consistently over many years.
20. Partnered delivery of messages will be more
successful
Experience shows that partnered delivery is often a key component
for projects that are large, complex and have many stakeholders.

Nov 26, 2009 - 9:38 am 239. Tom:

“First they ignore you; then they laugh
at you; then they fight you; then you win.”
Mahatma Gandhi

The above quote is theirs. Tha that’s all folks…

Nov 26, 2009 - 9:46 am 240. Dragon's Eye:

It’s about time more folks started to see the “big picture” going on here! I made sure to download the 67 MB+ “Zipfile” with the docs and emails! Very intense reading material here!

I would like to suggest comparing the “data points” with what the Farmer’s Almanac folks have! I think there would be some serious reconsiderations about the global climate apart from what the world is “told” to believe! This just might be a big enough “ripple” to “shake apart” this NWO system! It also goes to prove that the biggest financial “parasites” will stop at nothing in achieving their “end goals” at total control and pillaging of the Earth’s and the People’s resources!

Very nice piece, indeed!!!

Nov 26, 2009 - 12:55 pm 241. frank grimes:

moho,bc,etc.:

http://www.memorialhospital.org/library/general/stress-THE-3.html

“At some point in our lives, each of us faces the loss of someone or [something dear to us.] The grief that follows such a loss can seem unbearable, but grief is actually a healing process. Grief is the emotional suffering we feel after a loss of some kind. The death of a loved one, loss of a limb, [even intense disappointment can cause grief]. Dr. Elisabeth Kubler-Ross has named five stages of grief people go through following a serious loss. Sometimes people get stuck in one of the first four stages. Their lives can be painful until they move to the fifth stage – acceptance.”

take some time to mourn……then move on.

Nov 26, 2009 - 12:57 pm 242. Adam Neira:

Never before have so many owed so much to so few.

No, I’m not talking about the Battle of Britain when a country faced an evil existential threat although the situation is eerily similar. What I am eluding to is the very small number of people who have stuck to their philosophical guns for the past seven years. These people who after researching all the science diligently over many thousands of hours and spending thousands of dollars of their own money, have always maintained that “Man-Made Climate Change” is a myth. They have been vilified, abused, marginalised and slandered.

I am used to encountering people who are unaware that they are unaware. But perhaps in an enlightened country we should defer to greater wisdom and higher authority for our own good.

In a series of photos from the early 1930’s in Stalinist Russia, the peasants are shown being led to the gallows. Their faces and demeanour show resignation, sadness and apathy. They have been broken and have given up. They are automatons who accept the hangman’s noose and submit to their fate. Mass suicide by brainwashed consent.

“Australians are not brainwashed and browbeaten ! How dare you say that !”

We will see what unfolds…

Nov 26, 2009 - 3:46 pm 243. Madasbatsh-t:

Scientist misrepresents climate data….just not quite in the way you might think.

You should consider the reviews and rebuttals of Plimers book “Heaven and Earth”. His book is a great example of non-science and in many places can be considered to be downright dishonest. For a point by point rebuttal (extending to 46 pages) see http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/plimer2a0.pdf

Amongst the flaws present in his book are (I quote from the above linked document)
- key data are unattributed and the content of references is often mis-quoted.
- misrepresents the content of IPCC reports
- has at least 28 other instances of misrepresenting the content of cited sources
- has at least 10 cases of misrepresenting data records
- misrepresenting the operation of the IPCC and the authorship of IPCC reports
- many of the controversial assertions have no supporting citation

His book is in no way the scholarly analysis it is being promoted as. The rebuttal document is well laid out and referenced so all of the claims may be checked.

Always, always, always think for yourself.

Nov 26, 2009 - 4:49 pm 244. Greg Oakes (Canberra):

Max@209: Who said anything about decimating the world’s economy – if you do things properly then you will be repositioning the economy onto a sustainable platform that will largely free you from dependence upon middle eastern oil. Sure I wouldn’t want to have dollars tied up in the oil industry but with the oil being a finite resource being consumed by infinite demand its probably a dumb place to put money in the long term anyway.

So if you don’t want the world economy to end in “decimation”, get serious and do something about it. Sitting around and whinging about crackpot conspiracy theories just makes you look stupid in the eyes of the rest of the world.

If you’re as smart as we think you are (and you have proved it in the past, America) you have the opportunity to redefine the way the whole economy works. You can put it onto a new sustainable footing, creating new jobs and exporting into China and India instead of the other way around. You can use the tools of the Market to claw back some indepedance of action and thought from the Corporations and Banks whose greed is dragging you down into deeper and deeper debt.

And if we are wrong, and the climate is fine, what have you lost apart from dependance on Middle Eastern Oil. But look at what you can gain! For you and your grandchildren!

The choice is yours…

Nov 26, 2009 - 7:47 pm 245. Brian Richard Allen:

This behavior is that of criminals and … these criminals perpetrated these crimes at the expense of British and United States of America’s Taxpayers.

The same fascistic crooks presently own operate and control the state and feral gummints of Australia and the government of New Zealand. Their vast criminal enterprises also include the “intergovernmental panel” on “climate change” and the fraudulent data in that gang’s so-called “reports.” The same crooks meet in Copenhagen next week and want 0.7% of the Western world’s total income to pass through an unelected united nations’ “government” — and then on to the willing-to-kickback sticky fingers of the medieval bloody thugs who run the repressed (AKA “developing”) third world’s dictatorships/cesspits.

Every FRee Man should be angry. Very bloody angry!

Do you get that Buraq Hussayn 0zero? Nazi Pelosi? Dingy-Harry Reid? Mussolini-modeled modified-Marxists all!

Got that, Socialist-Internationalist/Hitlerist/Maoist, Chairman Rudd?

Got that, Socialist-Internationalist/Hitlerist/Maoist, Comrade Wong?

Got that, Marxist/Hitlerist/Dullardist, Comrade Brown?

Got that, (effective) Socialist-Internationalist, Comrade Turnbull?

Got that (effective) Socialist-Internationalist, Comrade/Kiwi Keys?

Nov 26, 2009 - 8:06 pm 246. Publius Speaks:

Since Wikipedia and the Scientific Method appeared to be important area of contention, I thought cutting/pasting part of the Wiki about the Scientific Method would be instructive.

[i]Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce [b]biased interpretations of the results.[/b] Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.[/i]

Oh, oh Lucy, you have some spailin to do.

Nov 26, 2009 - 8:18 pm 247. Greg Oakes (Canberra):

On the subject of certainty and Knowledge – nothing can put it more eleoquently the Jacob Bronowski in his marvellous television series The Ascent of Man:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mIfatdNqBA

Don’t get hung up on the numbers. Like I said – I can afford to be wrong. Can you?

Nov 26, 2009 - 9:00 pm 248. Exactly!:

Sue them ! Sue them! Sue them ! Sue Them !!!!!!!

Obama does not care about this country or its people.

With this much money at stake they will do anything to keep the hoax moving.

We, the people must sue !!!!!!!

Nov 26, 2009 - 9:09 pm 249. peter jackson:

“(Memo to conspiracy nuts: a conspiracy requires a motive. Where’s the motive?)”

It’s political. Just like yours.

Nov 26, 2009 - 10:34 pm 250. nathan R. Jessup:

(post 247-Greg Oakes) Fantastic video. I posted it on my site. There are many lessons in history that should humble, and also caution man in his haste…

Nathan R. Jessup

Nov 27, 2009 - 7:58 am 251. moho:

After some quiet reflection, I realize now that I’m completely wrong, about everything. My sincere, sincere apologies for disrupting this thread with my hateful nonsense. I wish you gentlemen and ladies a wonderful thanksgiving weekend.

Nov 27, 2009 - 8:28 am 252. Moho:

Well, 251, is an obvious forgery. I would never wish any of you a “Thanksgiving Weekend”. Thanksgiving falls on a Thursday, and it is the only legal holiday. Malingering hillbillies that you are, your traditional dishonest manipulation of turning the event into a four day holiday fails with people who don’t share your enthusiasm for the celebration of the triumph of holocaust. Back to work, you shiftless cousin-f%^^%ers.

Nov 27, 2009 - 10:28 am 253. tom j turner:

volcanos spew millions of tons of carbon sulpher you name it into the atmophere everyday climate change man made i think not… its fruad

Nov 27, 2009 - 1:34 pm 254. billy:

I’m a teacher who showed my classes the story of climategate on Tuesday. Too many teachers have lied to their students too long about so called global warming. For the past 11 years, we have been cooling, in spite of ALL of our so called “efforts” to warm the Earth. We could NOT do it.

Nov 27, 2009 - 2:39 pm 255. Moho:

My sincere apologies ladies and gentlemen for my obscene post # 252 I just don’t know what came over me. All who really know me know I am a polite humble guy with not a hint of narcissism, radical love of Islam or animosity to anyone especially Jews.

Nov 27, 2009 - 7:30 pm 256. Greg Oakes(Canberra):

margaret Thatcher, Conservative former Prime Minister of the UK in 1990 dispels the notion that climate change is a left wing plot:

“Thatcher, who got her degree in chemistry in 1947 from Oxford and went on to work as a research chemist before becoming a tax lawyer and, eventually, a politician, gave her first documented speech mentioning climate change at the Royal Society in 1988, almost a decade into her 11-year reign as Prime Minister. She told the assembled scientists that three changes in atmospheric chemistry 1. greenhouse gases, 2. the hole in the ozone layer and 3. acid emissions from power plants, warranted not just good science to resolve uncertainties but also government action to diminish pollution and promote sustainable development. She said:

“Even though this kind of action may cost a lot, I believe it to be money well and necessarily spent because the health of the economy and the health of our environment are totally dependent upon each other”.

On 8 November 1989 she addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations on the matter. Read her speech and I suspect that some people will be very surprised. She was clearly speaking from personal understanding and deep concern.

In 1990 she addressed the 2nd World Climate Conference. Her comments included the following:

“…the need for more research should not be an excuse for delaying much needed action now. There is already a clear case for precautionary action at an international level.”

“We should not forget that CFCs are 10,000 times more powerful, molecule for molecule, than carbon dioxide as agents of global warming. But of the other greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide is by far the most extensive and contributes about half of the manmade greenhouse warming. All our countries produce it. The latest figures which I have seen show that 26 per cent comes from North America, 22 per cent from the rest of the OECD, 26 per cent from the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and 26 per cent from the less developed countries.

These figures underline why a joint international effort to curb greenhouse gases in general and carbon dioxide in particular is so important. There is little point in action to reduce the amounts being put into the atmosphere in one part of the world, if they are promptly increased in another. Within this framework the United Kingdom is prepared, as part of an international effort including other leading countries, to set itself the demanding target of bringing carbon dioxide emissions back to this year’s level by the year 2005. That will mean reversing a rising trend before that date.”

Nov 27, 2009 - 10:52 pm 257. andy:

Wow, what a diatribe. What a bunch of self back slappers. I get a “life of brian ” experience and an ingnorance of science as a whole thrown in. Yeauses. First arguement. Because Romans didn’t have an industrial problem we don’t either? What twisted logic is this? This is pure head in the sand treatment. Second arguement ( which led me to this self back slapping place. ) Carbon is not a poison! Hello, are we in the 8th century? Carbon in the wrong proportions IS A POISON. Carbon in the wrong proportions is dangerous to life as we know it. THATS THE WHOLE ARGUEMENT. Just from a pure logical point, spewing millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere DOES HAVE AN EFFECT. You cannnot just say thats bull because its illogical. It assumes that the earth is infinite in size. What part of science do you beleive and what part do you not beleive? Do you really understand how science works? Get this guys, 90% of what we have in the modern world is because of the way science works. Can you deny what you have? Oh, by the way, scientists are reading into the data what they want to find. They are passionate about what they want to find and are trying to line their own pockets, lol. Man, do you guys have any ability to think for yourselves?

Nov 27, 2009 - 10:59 pm 258. Peter Forsythe:

244 Greg Oakes
Sure I wouldn’t want to have dollars tied up in the oil industry but with the oil being a finite resource being consumed by infinite demand its probably a dumb place to put money in the long term anyway.
OT, but actually, Economics 101 taught me that when you have limited supply and high (let alone “infinite”) demand, price will go up, hence oil’s a far from a “dumb place” to put your money, in the medium/longer term….
That aside, the points you make are reasonable, though what’s at stake here is more than turning to a “green economy” with green technology, and so on. It’s the thought of mandated moneys going to unelected bureaucrats to deploy in ways they see fit, via the Copenhagen and related processes. That’s the real worry, cause what we’re talking about here is billions into the trillions, all for, at best, limited impacts on CO2 and even more limited on temperatures. In the hands of bureaucrats. Shiver….

Nov 28, 2009 - 5:09 am 259. SunSword:

Re: Andy #257
> Carbon in the wrong proportions IS A POISON.
> Carbon in the wrong proportions is dangerous to life as we know it.
> THATS THE WHOLE ARGUEMENT.

Late to the party are you?
(1) What is the “right” proportion?
(2) So you don’t think CO2 drives temperature, that is not the argument?
(3) I suggest you look up how high CO2 can go before we have issues. You will find that it can go from the current level (a bit less than 400 ppm) to 4000ppm and the impact is nominal. Of course CO2 will never get near that high because by then humans will be 100% nuclear and solar.

Nov 28, 2009 - 7:09 am 260. seventhson:

1. Global Warming Scientists (criminals) have been caught skewing data with help from insiders at the UN backed IPCC. Time will show that this conspiracy involves climatologists worldwide.

2. Governments from around the world are about to meet in Copenhagen to talk “Cap and Trade” based on this sullied scientific information. Cap and Trade is just another term for Massive Carbon Taxes.

3. Al Gore along with the likes of Maurice Strong of Powercorp and Oil Companys like Shell, Exxon…etc. are in the process of setting up Carbon Trading Corporations to take advantage of “Cap and Trade”.

4. If you think your gasoline, home heating and power bills are high now just bend over, grab your ankles and wait for the shaft thats sure to come.

5. David Suzuki and his band of Tree Huggers won’t stop until We are all living in unheated, unlit caves wondering what happened. Who knew that world war 3 may have already been won by a conspiracy of Criminal Scientists and Powercorp. Left with no monetary resources the common man will be left fighting World War 4 with stick and stones. Welcome to the coming of the Dark Ages.

6. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!! Please copy this comment and paste it wherever you find blind left wing journalists helping these criminals with their cause.

Nov 28, 2009 - 8:38 am 261. seventhson:

Found this comment on a CBC article by Don Newman:

Fits on Twitter like this:
Q. How many climate scientists to change a light bulb?
A. Zero, There is consensus it will change, so they’ve decided to keep us in the dark.

Nov 28, 2009 - 8:44 am 262. Karl Munchausen:

We were one of the first to call attention to this leak. Some think that the files weren’t hacked, but were leaked via a whistleblower. We have commented on Climate Czar Carol Browner’s rejection of Climategate on our web site Prevarication.net. The National Institute of Prevarication takes a very dim view of these climatologists that were calling out global cooling just a few decades ago. Climate Czar Browner is just a socialist, wrapped in global warming PJ’s.

Nov 28, 2009 - 9:01 am 263. Leigh:

After reading the CRU emails and computer code notations, it is abundantly clear that whatever CRU has been doing isn’t science. Perhaps they’ve redefined science just as they’ve redefined peer review, but it would have been nice if they’d given the rest of the world a heads up about the change.

Nov 28, 2009 - 11:32 am 264. ashley:

Its so easy to pretend, so easy to live in a fantasy of rhetorical BS. Thats where these global warming deniers live. Crazy, paranoid bunch.

Nov 28, 2009 - 3:08 pm 265. ashley:

Plimer’s book was peer reviewed as poor, B-grade rubbish.

Nov 28, 2009 - 3:13 pm 266. Greg Oakes(Canberra):

@peter forsyth 258
Economics 101 certainly dictates that low supply coupled with high demand will generate high prices. Which is why you would expect to see massive investment in oil infrastructure given the demands of China and India. However investment in oil infrastructure has dropped over the last 20 years reflecting the fact that no major oil fields have been discovered over the same period.

But anyway, back to CO2. Global warming is actually one the lesser side effects of increasing CO2 levels. Of much greater concern (IMHO) is ocean acidification, where the CO2 absorbed into the ocean reduces the PH levels in the ocean, impacting upon very fundamental layers of the ocean food chain and also impacting upon rainfall generation systems. My point being that Global Warming is only one of a myriad of potential side effects of increasing CO2 levels (not to mention other gasses being generated as a result of human industrial output). The world’s environment is a delicately balanced and closed system. You can’t casually and thoughtlessly change the chemical balance of the biosphere and expect there to be no repercussions.

With regard to “unelected bureaucrats”, I hope that also covers organizations such as the WTO and World Bank and the boards of corporations and banks whose collective greed and mismanagement have so brutally decimated your economy.

Nov 28, 2009 - 3:43 pm 267. a dood:

Well, it was inevitable really. How long could they have kept up the lie if the global climate continued to cool? Wasn’t the Earth supposed to be half desert by now, according to their calculations in the 90’s? ^___^

Nov 28, 2009 - 8:20 pm 268. Elliot:

Andy,

It seems as if you might have bought into that “anti-science” description given those who are angry concerning how these particular scientists have conducted themselves, along with the self-aggrandizing politicians (they are hired by us-not the reverse)who imagine they will make life-altering decisions for us without any need for consulting us.

These politicians mistake their being elected as a mandate for any/all of their ideas when many times citizens will vote without much real knowledge of a candidate and for meaningless arbitrary reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with the big picture.

The US and its tax-payers will be making the largest sacrifices. I believe Americans are entitled to a thorough and open discussion with skeptics treated as equals in this debate. These scientists, and their often politically motivated advocates, had no right to expect their word should be accepted as “settled” in any way. On whose say so ? They operated under-cover, in darkness within a closed, narrow-minded community consisting of about forty people in all, and mostly unknown to us. They have established nothing approaching trust. In addition, the UN does not deserve any special respect or acquiescence. The UN officials are not elected by us and mean nothing to us.None of them have my wellfare,or any American citizen’s wellfare at heart. I distrust their politics and therefore their motivations.

You can disabuse yourself of the notion that the people posting here are anti-science and do not appreciate science that has been conducted in the proper manner by ethical scientists.

Nov 28, 2009 - 8:22 pm 269. AlanDownunder:

Any right-thinking person knows that man made global warming just couldn’t be true because the only way to respond to it is through collectivism.

Nov 28, 2009 - 8:43 pm 270. greg oakes (canberra):

Elliot – I think its great that you are suggesting a debate based on science and between ethical scientists. It’s just a worry when you choose to lead the debate (in this case) with an article by Ian Plimer who has been clearly shown to manipulate and recontextualise data, to obfuscate and basically lie, in exactly the same manner in which you accuse the Climate Change supporters.

Please read the article I listed above at http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91

Nov 28, 2009 - 8:55 pm 271. shayne:

What a funny pickle Ians in that he’s now finding himself in the same lonely and cranky corner as Steven McIntire, a creationist.

Ian, of all people, I would have thought you’d have the skeptical sense to know when you’ve been sold a con. Why the leap over to the anti-science side?

All you’ll see in those correspondence is some annoyed scientists privately slagging off Mcintire and the whole heratige foundation funded anti science brigade. Remember how the guy who found the bacteria evolving to citrate starvation got harassed and badgered by nutty creationists responded rather civilly? You can bet the correspondance with his actual peers was far less polite.

Critical thinking Ian, you used to preach it, nows the time to apply it, or at least go read up how the people involved with the emails account for it. Crossed t’s and dotted i’s the whole way.

Pans out there was nothing to see in all this.

Embarassing.

Nov 29, 2009 - 10:18 pm 272. bananabender:

Margaret Thatcher only “believed’ in global warming because she needed an excuse to shut down the communist controlled British coal industry.

Nov 30, 2009 - 5:56 am 273. bananabender:

I suggest Greg Oakes(Canberra) that you learn something about oil exploration. It costs billions of dollars to explore an develop a new oil field. All the major oil companies have ample reserves. They only search for more oil when a) prices are high and b) reserves are low. For most of the last 20 years oil prices have been low so the oil majors have had no incentive to develop new fields.

Nov 30, 2009 - 6:06 am 274. DT:

“there have been six major ice ages. During five of these six ice ages, the atmospheric carbon dioxide content was higher than at present.” Do you have a reference for this? I spent an hour looking around on the net and cannot verify this information anywhere. According to the EPA the 2006 concentration of atmospheric CO2 was 382 ppm and that is far higher than at any other time in the past 600,000 thousand years. I can only assume that it is you Ian Pilmer who are the fraud, not climate scientists. Don’t bother telling me that the EPA is in on the conspiracy. If you do you, will only make me think that you have mad cow disease.

Dec 2, 2009 - 8:29 pm 275. CURT:

moho,

I’ll give you one scientific certainty: You are proof of evolution you MONKEY!!!

Dec 4, 2009 - 10:58 pm 276. CURT:

The ONLY thing(s) polluting the earth are tree hugging, hemp smoking, lsd taking liberal idiots. Their dillusional view of reality is laughable. I have a great idea…….let’s stop burning coal. Perhaps we should burn liberals as the flatulence that spews from their ridiculous mouths MUST have less adverse effects on our planet than fossil fuels and tree food (CO2). Please……send Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the rest of the liberal looy tunes packing. The only thing they care about is POWER. THey intend to keep people ignorant and poor so that they need government to help their sorry exsistance only to get votes….period!!! Do you really think that liberals like Pelosi really care about you? ………PLEASE……wake up! Al Gore isn’t profiting from the Global Warming FRAUD? Hipocrite! All I heard about when Bush (putz) was in office was chronyism blah, blah, blah. So, this administration is different? Seiu, Bill Ayers, Van Jones etc…. Nearly ALL of our politicians have sold their souls and especially the Teddy Kennedy wanna be’s. I can’t take it anymore!

Dec 4, 2009 - 11:31 pm 277. MTJ:

Dr. Plimer your book, Heaven and Earth, is a bright light in the fog of climate lies. This summer and fall, in Nebraska, have been the coolest 6 months in 50 years.

The Constitution of the United States says in Article II (Describing the powers of the President) Section 2, Paragraph 2, “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur….”
President Obama will attend the last day of the Copenhagen Conference, he might sign the accord, but it will never pass 2/3’s of the Senate if we keep up the effort to get out the real truth to all the Senators.

Dec 5, 2009 - 6:44 pm 278. ACIbbott:

My growing distrust of climate scientists is bad enough, but the thing that worries me the most is the proposed solution to environmental issues, which is to make America, (a sovereign nation) answer to a higher power and further enslave us all. To my mind, the only proper solution is private ownership of all property and environmental limits adopted by voluntarily accepted deed restrictions. More here:
http://acibbott.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/my-solution-for-the-global-climate-change-issue/

Dec 5, 2009 - 6:56 pm 279. LB Hagen:

ClimateGate – It’s NOT the Man-made CO2
-
http://roanokeslant.blogspot.com/2009/12/climategate-its-not-man-made-co2.html
-
LBHagen@RoanokeSlant.org

Dec 10, 2009 - 7:36 am