Institute of Physics on Climategate

March 3rd, 2010 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

A refrain we often hear is that we should listen to the scientists, when it comes to issues like . And I agree.

Now the e-mails have been debated at some length. Poneke did an extensive blog post where he advocated that there was real cause for concern about what they unveiled. Some attacked him for this and said it was no big thing.

The UK Parliament is holding hearings on the e-mails, and one notable submission is from the Institute of Physics, representing 36,000 scientists.

Some quotes from their submission:

The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital.

That was the opening, and then:

There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific ‘self correction’, which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation.

The whole peer review process for climate science needs reviewing they say.

Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the verification of the integrity of the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information legislation. Nevertheless, the right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary. The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers. Requiring data to be electronically accessible to all, at the time of publication, would remove this possibility.

The law sets out the minimum necessary disclosure, but ethical scientists should be disclosing far more than the minimum.

Now the practises disclosed by Climategate do not mean that there is not a link between greenhouse gas emissions and increasing temperatures. Few people argue that.

But what it does mean is that you can’t expect the nations of the world to commit hundreds of billions of dollars on mitigation efforts, when the key scientists involved in climate research have failed to follow good scientific practice with their data, and make it open.

The climate science “industry” needs to not ignore Climategate but adopt a universal policy of full and open access to all data, and to not treat those with different scientific theories as enemies.

Tags: ,

99 Responses to “Institute of Physics on Climategate”

  1. KiwiGreg (3,255 comments) says:

    “Now the practises disclosed by Climategate do not mean that there is not a link between greenhouse gas emissions and increasing temperatures. Few people argue that.”

    Saying “Few people argue that” doesnt make it any more true than people who constantly say “the science is settled” or for that matter “god is real”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    The climate science “industry” needs to not ignore Climategate but adopt a universal policy of full and open access to all data, and to not treat those with different scientific theories as enemies.

    I agree DPF. But the problem was that many of the information requests to the CRU were not from scientists with different scientific theories but from wingnut flat-earthers who wouldn’t know a scientific theory if it kicked them in the goolies and whose agenda was not to review the CRU’s work but to obstruct and disrupt it.

    That doesn’t excuse the CRU scientists for their failure to disclose the information requested, but I think their frustration over being disrupted in their work by crank requests helps to explain it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. andrei (2,657 comments) says:

    Now the practises disclosed by Climategate do not mean that there is not a link between greenhouse gas emissions and increasing temperatures. Few people argue that.

    Why the caveat?

    The likely impact of GHGs on world temperatures is trivial – there is no profound reason to assume that we are significantly messing up the climate.

    And yet that wretched Nick Smith continues with the absurd ETS – which is theft from the productive elements of society to line the pockets of parasites.

    If New Zealanders really want a Governement that steals from the productive we might as well have Labour.

    What a sick joke

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Manolo (13,780 comments) says:

    “But what it does mean is that you can’t expect the nations of the world to commit hundreds of billions of dollars on mitigation efforts, when the key scientists involved in climate research have failed to follow good scientific practice with their data, and make it open.”

    If so, why has Key’s government decided to increase taxes at the tune of many millions of dollars, using the hastily-put-together ETS? Didn’t Nick Smith say “AGW is real” and “the science is settled”?

    The National Party cannot have it both ways: on one side claim skepticism, while ramping up taxes. The term hypocrisy comes to mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. george (388 comments) says:

    “what it does mean is that you can’t expect the nations of the world to commit hundreds of billions of dollars on mitigation efforts”

    Except in NZ where mad Nick Smith insists we must be the first and only country in the world (ever) to have an ETS! We’re all going to be paying more for petrol and electricity from 1 July 2010!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    “That doesn’t excuse the CRU scientists for their failure to disclose the information requested, but I think their frustration over being disrupted in their work by crank requests helps to explain it.”

    Yep, it is because they were constantly asked to justify their theory that the scientists decided to withhold their data.

    Constant justification is EXACTLY what is required when you put forward a theory. Sure if you answer the same question over and over that can get annoying, but is very easily solved by simply refering to previous answers.

    What they effectively did was HIDE their workings! It doesnt matter whether you think the people asking for the workings were “cranks” (though I have little doubt you would label all of those people cranks for the mere fact that they were asking).

    It is funny how your “explanation” sounds a hell of a lot like an excuse, toad.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Deborah (156 comments) says:

    one notable submission is from the Institute of Physics, representing 36,000 scientists.

    That’s not quite correct. They’ve got 36,000 members, but not all of those members are scientists. They’ve got varying types of membership, including student memberships.

    Why should you join the Institute of Physics?

    Membership of the Institute is for everyone who has an interest in the subject and its future. Our members come from diverse backgrounds and follow all kinds of different careers; many are directly involved in physics but as many are using their physics training in a wide range of businesses.

    [Link]

    So it’s not an organisation representing 36,000 people with PhDs in Physics. However it’s obviously got plenty of members with that level of qualification, and its members are highly likely be be at least scientifically informed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    “Why the caveat?”

    Andrei, the caveat is what everyone has to insert in any discussion about global warming to appease those from the church of AGW. If you dont, then you get labelled a crank and denier and worse and the whooe point of your post gets lost in a shit-storm of stupid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Brian Smaller (4,023 comments) says:

    Kimble – Of course toad’s explaination is an excuse. Like the learned fellows of the CRU, without global warming toad’s life would be empty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Ed Snack (1,873 comments) says:

    Toad, that’s a flat out lie, and what’s more you know (or should know) that it is. Typical green party activist, get given a talking point by somebody and then repeat ad nauseam as if it were true. Typically also, the “wingnut flat earthers” label, why not just call them “criminals against Gaia” and demand that they be tried before a tribunal for their sins ?

    For your information, approximately 13 FOI requests were made to CRU before specific campaign produced about 120 or so more. This specific campaign arose because CRU used a flagrantly untrue reason for denying access to data. They claimed that they were bound by confidentiality agreements that prevented the release of data. The campaign of FOI requests was to attempt to force them to actually produce these agreements, something they were, with a few exceptions, unable to do. What’s more, as the CRUtape letters and emails reveal, they released the same data to some “favoured” people anyway. So clearly the refusal of the original FOI requests was incorrect and deliberately so.

    The use of FOI requests to attempt to free illegally withheld data is entirely appropriate, if you don’t have the time, don’t do the crime.

    Interestingly, you support the call to “free the data, free the code”, something these “wingnuts” have been calling for for years. Faced with the illegal withholding of data, what would YOU do Toad, sit there and whine, or attempt to do something legal about it ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. petal (706 comments) says:

    Reality check.

    Even **if** everything the Global Warming supporters say is absolutely true, then unless China acts, it alone will gobble up in ONE YEAR any gains made by everyone else over TWENTY YEARS.

    Add India….

    Then the USA…

    Unless those three start off on the right path, the rest of us are just using economic castration for the sake of “doing the right thing” but with a completely negligible environmental outcome.

    End of story.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Auberon (873 comments) says:

    Actually David, it might well be that the vast majority of the great unwashed aren’t knowledgable enough about the science to make informed comment, but all the same, huge public poll after public poll now says “there is not a link between greenhouse gas emissions and increasing temperatures.” Rather than your statement that “Few people argue that.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. GJ (329 comments) says:

    And the sadest part is most Kiwis continue to get sucked in by lies and simply fail to see it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Pongo (372 comments) says:

    And Mr Jones of CRU admitted to the BBC that there had been no significant warming and that “possibly” it was hotter during the medievel warming period. Our own NIWA seems to have conveniently lost the data and reasons for their upward temperature adjustments. Its turned into a complete joke and I for one no longer believe any of it.
    You should do a bit of polling like they have done in the UK. Mr Key promised to halt the lunacy and be a fast follower well he looks a bit dam stupid now and will look even sillier when we get the headline that a NZ company has bought carbon credits from the Russian mafia.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. David in Chch (519 comments) says:

    Thankfully, science is not decided by polls. This reminded me of a cartoon from phdcomics.com:
    http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1271

    Wish I could cut and paste here. :-p

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Has it really been a cold summer in Wellington? Only before you adjust the temperature record.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Well said Petal.

    At the very least, for his bungling promotion of this obvious fraud when everyone was trying to tell him the truth-

    NICK SMITH SHOULD RESIGN RIGHT NOW.

    IDIOT.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    The real question should be, what are we to do with these socialists bastards who hide behind failed arguments to steal money from their citizens?. Shonkey and idiot boy claim our trade will suffer should we fail to bow to the AGW God, lies lies and fucking damn lies. The world needs all it can it eat, trade blackmail is simply a scare tactic to shut the punters up.National is no better then the thieving gits they have replaced, scumbags the lot of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    It has been extraordinary watching the AlGorists/Alarmists try to “deny” the Phil Jones BBC interview. For example just read a Huffington Post article that said:

    “The very next day, Brett Baier amplified Kristol’s mendacity:

    The scientist behind the so-called “climate-gate” e-mail scandal now admits there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995.

    Jones said something very different:

    BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

    Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

    I’m sorry – how is the first quote wrong?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Manolo (13,780 comments) says:

    NICK SMITH SHOULD RESIGN RIGHT NOW.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. KiwiGreg (3,255 comments) says:

    @ queenstfarmer I think what Jones is trying to say is that the trend is NEARLY significant, therefore it really IS significant and even if it isn’t significant now it will be with a bit more data. So that’s the same thing as being significant and therefore there really IS global warming and all must bow before the god.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    “___do not mean that there is not a link between greenhouse gas emissions and increasing temperatures. Few people argue that.”

    Bit like rocking up to (say) a Honda fanboy website and saying “Mitsubishi Evos are faster, few people would argue that.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Toad said…
    flat-earthers who wouldn’t know a scientific theory if it kicked them in the goolies and whose agenda was not to review the CRU’s work but to obstruct and disrupt it.

    Look who’s talking? Funny that Toad and his co-bloggers had a recent blog post advocating to raise minimum wage. I had shown Todd (and his ill-informed Labour mates – Jacinda, et al) a few times in the past that economic researches concluded that raising minimum wages will lead to higher youth unemployment, but I guess that he is a flat-earthers. Which academic researches to be dismissed and which ones to be wholeheartedly endorsed Toad?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Chicken Little (741 comments) says:

    Now the practises disclosed by Climategate do not mean that there is not a link between greenhouse gas emissions and increasing temperatures. Few people argue that.

    I’d be happy to see some actual (not IPCC) peer reviewed (not by the ‘boys’ ) evidence of this, especially in relation to C02. Causation is what we’re talking about not imagined forcings. Anyone got any?

    As for Toads bullshit comment above, you have to wonder just who are the ‘wingnut flat earthers’ in this dogfight?

    You also have to ask why there have been (apparently) thousands of ‘crank’ requests under the FOI and still most of the info hasn’t been released, in fact the CRU then said that they’d ‘lost’ the original data. Why is that Toad? Why didn’t they say they’d lost the data in the first place? Why did they lie about it? and why did they conspire ( see emails ) to hide the fact that their data sets were shite?

    The similarities to our very own NIWA and excuses for not releasing data and workings are concerning to say the least. A perusal of their site makes for more concern. Multiple links back to AR4, circular linking to their own work to give it authority and statements such as

    NIWA has had a lot of interest in how it derived the New Zealand temperature record, probably because it shows a clear warming trend which, in turn, points to the need for significant action on climate change.

    whereas the UK met office has just adjusted their NZ temp records after problems were found by one of the ‘cranks’ involving mistakes upwards of up to 1 degree C at some stations ( Napier ).

    What ‘adjustments’ did NIWA make before the Met office got the data? Well, we don’t know as they haven’t released the workings that were used to ‘smooth’ the data. They’ll point you to Salingers thesis which is apparently in the library at Vic Uni and say that it’s all in there. He apparently wrote it in the late 70’s so they’ve been using it unquestioned since then as they don’t seem to have their own copy. Go figure.

    All in all if JK and Nick Smith don’t think there’s enough evidence to postpone the implementation of the ETS then you have to think that they’re more interested in reaming the poor taxpayer than saving the planet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    “Few people argue that.”

    Displaying a distinct lack of confidence in your poisition there Mr Farrar

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. george (388 comments) says:

    Chicken Little: The ETS has already been implemented with respect to forestry. As a result, there is no economic activity in that sector, nor has there been any since 1 January 2008. Hundreds if not thousands of jobs have been lost.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    Not only the Institute of Physics but also the Institutes of Chemistry and Statistics weighed in with “robust” critiques of the scientific malpractices at CRU.

    They all argue that science cannot be considered robust when it is closed to critical scrutiny. It certainly cannot be considered “settled”.

    NZ is left looking like an idiot with an orphaned and irrelevant ETS.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. serge (108 comments) says:

    There has been climate changes since Noah’s time, these scientists, the sock and sandals brigade are mere socialists sucking the monetary system. Changes have occurred over thousands of years even before the advent of cars or even chimneys or baked beans.

    Climate change advocates are kleptocrats.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Chicken Little (741 comments) says:

    Hey George – Yup, bit scary isn’t it? multiply that over the entire economy.

    In my own case – I’m a small exporter. About 80% of my sales are offshore ( mostly US and Aust ). When the ETS comes into force my material costs are going to rise by about 15% according to my suppliers. Freight will rise. Power to run my machinery will rise.

    So, I can make less money or put my prices up. Fine for Kiwi sales as all prices will rise but for international sales (80%) it’s a disaster. My competitiveness is mostly destroyed. What to do?

    On top of that I will have personal costs increase of $150.00 per week ( family of 5) according to Treasury costings. So I have to pay myself more from what will inevitably be less sales.

    That is why I’m interested to see any actual ( not forecasted ) evidence of the effects of C02 on temperature. There seems to be a body of evidence forming that Temperature drives C02 rises not the other way round. The lag seems to be about 800 years. Can’t think what was going on 800 years ago that could cause C02 rises today, can you?

    What was going on in the early 1200’s? Must Widen Perspective?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Inventory2 (10,342 comments) says:

    I’ve only just viewed this thread, but cant let toad’s opening comment go unchallenged:

    But the problem was that many of the information requests to the CRU were not from scientists with different scientific theories but from wingnut flat-earthers who wouldn’t know a scientific theory if it kicked them in the goolies and whose agenda was not to review the CRU’s work but to obstruct and disrupt it.

    What is it with these Greenies that they have to come out swinging, and abuse anyone who dares disagree with them? More than the Greens’ policies of economic destruction, what puts me off them completely is the self-righteous arrogance which so many of their members portray; a smug “we know what’s good for you”. Patently, they don’t.

    Still, all going well, the electorate will come to its senses in 2011 and rid us of the Greens as a party in Parliament. With that will come the demise of the party, because they’ll have to pay for everything themselves, and the taxpayer will get a break. Some of us haven’t forgotten the Greens’ abuse of the party list in 2008 when Russel Norman was able to climb all over two members ahead of him on the list in order to campaign with the resources of a sitting member. Any claims that the Greens might have had to the moral high ground were, IMHO extinguished with that shameless exercise in rorting the taxpayer.

    Right; I’ve got that off my chest, and I feel ever so much better!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Rod (180 comments) says:

    @ George: “We’re all going to be paying more for petrol and electricity from 1 July 2010!”

    We are already paying far more than we need for electricity due to the faddish madness over investing in relatively inefficient wind power generation. It really grates every time I have to pay a power bill. Rational thinking about economic efficiency has gone out the window.

    I thought our society had advanced, but we are no better at logical thinking than when religious zealots in the Middle Ages saw the Devil in cats and had them slaughtered, leading directly to a plague of rats and the death of millions through the Black Plague that swept through Europe. Lets hope the consequences of this present nonsense are not so dire, though some claim the biofuel foolishness has already cost millions of lives in the developing world through higher food prices.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. someguy (22 comments) says:

    This is pretty pathetic DPF,

    No one has come out in support of the CRU’s right to not comply with FOI requests. Poneke and the nutcase chorus think there is evidence of scientific fraud in the emails. None of the reports from the IoP the royal soc. chemistry or the royal soc. of stats draws that conclusion.

    The climate science “industry” needs to … treat those with different scientific theories as enemies.

    What alternative theories? All the denialists deal in is doubt, they’re the ones who made climate science thier enemy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Rod (180 comments) says:

    “What alternative theories?”
    To hell with the theories, mate. Lets deal in facts. That’s the heart if the problem. AGW is just a theory, and one that seriously lacks any empirical evidence – and what supposed empirical evidence there is hangs almost entirely on the badly mangled “hockeystick” graph and manipulated surface temperature records. If that call for rationality puts me in the “nutcase chorus” I would rather be there than be part of the Marxist “post normal science” mob that is behind AGW.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. davidp (3,581 comments) says:

    Meanwhile, in a different century…

    The Pope: “The Sun revolves around the Earth.”

    People: “It’s the other way around, actually.”

    The Pope: “No, the Earth is the center of the universe. I’m infallible. God says so. The science is settled, deniers!”

    People: “What science?”

    The Pope: “Evidence. Lots of evidence.”

    People: “Like?”

    The Pope: “Lots of evidence. But we can’t show it to you because the people who gave it to us made us promise not to.”

    People: “You’re going to have to do better than that!”

    The Pope: “There was lots of evidence. Errrr… But we lost it. You’ll just have to take out word that it existed and that it showed the Sun revolving around the Earth. And Mars and Venus too. And those pesky moons that Galileo found last week. There were photos. And a signed note from God.”

    People: “Are you for real?”

    DPF: “Now the practises disclosed by Sungate do not mean that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Few people argue that.”

    Toad: “But the problem was that many of the information requests to the Vatican were not from scientists with different scientific theories but from wingnut astronomers who wouldn’t know a scientific theory if it kicked them in the goolies and whose agenda was not to review the Vatican’s work but to obstruct and disrupt it.”

    Smith: “We need a scheme to ensure that the Earth remains the center of the universe. It’ll cost billions! But we need to lead the world on this, even if no one else is insane enough to follow us.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    someguy is quite right.

    Scientific theories of all stripes are published daily in the peer reviewed journals. It’s the junk science that has trouble getting published. But even the NAS gave McIntyre and McKitrick the honour of publishing their objections to the hockey stick, which Michael Mann firmly rebutted.

    And the data has always been available on Nasa’s website where people can go and create their own scenarios and get them published.

    Also, the comment by Jones with regard to warming since 1995 is scientifically correct, although to the lay person it is still a warming. A warming trend does not equate with a cooling trend!

    Furthermore, Nasa does not agree with the Hadley Centre that 1998 was the warmest year. A full analysis can be found on James Hansen’s website: If It’s That Warm, How Come It’s So Darned Cold?

    Here is his summary:

    The bottom line is this: the Earth has been in a period of rapid global warming for the 
    past three decades.  The assertion that the planet has entered a period of cooling in the past 
    decade is without foundation.  On the contrary, we find no significant deviation from the 
    warming trend of the past three decades. 
    Weather fluctuations exceed the magnitude of average global warming over the past 
    half century.  However, the perceptive person should be able to notice that climate is warming 
    on decadal time scales.  The global temperature trend over the past few decades has been 
    strong enough that there is a noticeable “loading” of the climate dice that define the 
    probability of unusually warm or cool seasons.

    All that is being questioned about CRU is their public relations methods, not the science. 

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Pongo (372 comments) says:

    @ Luc, what the hell were you smoking before you wrote that drivel. A public relations issue !! We need to clean up our environment and do the right thing locally and individually, we dont need some daft ETS based on dodgy science that smacks everyone in the pocket to benefit some fraudulantly concocted carbon credit. Its total madness can you really believe a cow farting in the Waikato is going to flood the Maldives.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. andrei (2,657 comments) says:

    Well who are the “deniers” on this thread?

    Junk science exposed in the biggest scientific scandal since Lysenko and they still carry on clutching at straws – even quoting the very clowns now exposed as frauds.

    Pathetic

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    Quite right Luc the science isn’t in question, the bastards won’t produce the science. By the way how are your carbon credits holding up in value?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    I agree DPF. But the problem was that many of the information requests to the CRU were not from scientists with different scientific theories but from wingnut flat-earthers who wouldn’t know a scientific theory if it kicked them in the goolies and whose agenda was not to review the CRU’s work but to obstruct and disrupt it.

    Typical facist behaviour, if someone doesnt agree with you call them names.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    I see Shonkey made the news hour again with the opening of a research center at Massey that studies animal gas emissions ( FFS ), they would be better off moving to the beehive, heaps of emissions there. The researchers are already claiming a victory in identifying a microbe that produces the methane coming from cows gut’s. It seems a solution is still a decade away in producing a method for controlling this microbe. Fuck, I bet old Shonkey breathed a sigh of relief, can’t have any sort of solution to a problem that will bring in billions over the coming years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. rouppe (971 comments) says:

    Has any scientific source estimated the quantity of greenhouse gases that come from natural sources and thus what percentage of total greenhouse gases are naturally occurring?

    I’m thinking eruptions, wild fires, geothermal activity that sort of thing – both land based and submersed….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Guy Fawkes (702 comments) says:

    Q: Why do so many of the Alarmists have big Beards?

    Q: Why are so many of the Sceptics clean shaven?

    Q: How does the Indian Chairman of the IPCC manage to keep a straight face?

    Q: Why do the alarmists never give any recognition to photosynthesis, and the requirement of green plants to use Co2?

    Q: How does offset carbon trading help at all?

    Q: Since when was Co2 described as a pollutant?

    Q: Greenhouse Gases paints a word picture of a captive atmosphere held in by erm, Glass. And not gravity and centrifugal forces.

    A: Climate change has always happened, and is far more affected by our dying Sun.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Guy Fawkes (702 comments) says:

    Cows in the Waikato amongst other places cannot cause a problem with methane compared to all the ruminants in India , China, and Indo China.

    Dr Smith should know better, and really should look harder at the issue. Otherwise he needs to consider his position.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Luc Hansen 6:37 pm,

    Furthermore, Nasa does not agree with the Hadley Centre that 1998 was the warmest year. A full analysis can be found on James Hansen’s website:

    The bottom line is this: the Earth has been in a period of rapid global warming for the
    past three decades. The assertion that the planet has entered a period of cooling in the past
    decade is without foundation. On the contrary, we find no significant deviation from the
    warming trend of the past three decades.

    Not a relation of yours, Luc? – his ‘style’ matches yours – “Lies, damn lies, and … massaged data.”

    So we’re to believe there has been “a period of rapid global warming for the past three decades”, and this is important, and yet the fact that there has been no warming, or even cooling, for the last decade is SOMEHOW NOT IMPORTANT?
    Good grief!

    Not only do the Algoreans have their panties around their ankles on AGW, but they are being rodgered by their own hockeystick and still they come back for more.

    Always thought progressive lackeys were a warped masochistic lot much like their puppetmasters – string up the lot of them; we’re not buying it, Luc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    rouppe 7:37 pm,

    Has any scientific source estimated the quantity of greenhouse gases that come from natural sources and thus what percentage of total greenhouse gases are naturally occurring?

    I’m thinking eruptions, wild fires, geothermal activity that sort of thing – both land based and submersed….

    Shhhh!
    And don’t mention swamp gas and emissions from wetlands – MUST NOT GO THERE!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Guy Fawkes (702 comments) says:

    It is typical of the Pollies to jump on this issue, as it is wound up beyond reasonable evidence. The very best distraction to blind the average man on the Clapham Omnibus.

    It is only when they stop building more terminals or even new airports. Consider banning planes over 15 years old, or a total flying ban.

    Only when they start giving credits and money back for radically changed behavior that people will start to believe that maybe this isn’t a drill.

    Gordon Brown stated before Nohopenhagen that there was only 50 days to save the World. There was far too much money at stake and the 3rd World smelled the extra money coming directly their way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Pita (373 comments) says:

    Rouppe 7.37pm

    “Has any scientific source estimated the quantity of greenhouse gases that come from natural sources and thus what percentage of total greenhouse gases are naturally occurring?”

    Water vapour makes up the greatest quantity of greenhouse gasses… Co2 makes up a very small proportion of the total. The majority of the Co2 comes from the ocean and decaying vegetable matter… around 90% mans contribution to the mix of Co2 is consideraably less than 10%

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Pita (373 comments) says:

    Deborah 2.36pm

    “one notable submission is from the Institute of Physics, representing 36,000 scientists.

    That’s not quite correct. They’ve got 36,000 members, but not all of those members are scientists. They’ve got varying types of membership, including student memberships.”

    In the same way that the majority of the oft quoted 2500 scientists of the IPCC are beaurocrats and railway engineers

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Peter (1,712 comments) says:

    flat-earthers who wouldn’t know a scientific theory if it kicked them in the goolies and whose agenda was not to review the CRU’s work but to obstruct and disrupt it.

    Ah, Toad. The “science is settled” line has been proven to be the lie it always was. Not much scientific process going on, just a lot of opportunist hot air, eh.

    Scuttle off back to Fog-Blog…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Guy Fawkes

    Your questions 1,2,3 are just ad hominems. Good fun, I agree, but hardly serious debating points.

    Q4: if you mean the scientists, the answer is yes. As it is to rouppe’s query about quantifying CO2 from all sources. Just go to real climate and perform a search.

    Q5: a very good question. Hansen says no. Kyoto is often offered as proof of its ineffectiveness.

    Q6: since an increase in our atmosphere that is leading global temperature rise of such proportions that humans and many other species are existentially imperiled.

    Q7: no scientist paints such a picture. Talk like that is just a product of a fevered imagination fueled by paranoia and fear.

    Q8: yes and no. The effects of the sun influence are well quantified and accounted for. I suggest you read The complete Ice Age: How climate change shaped the world, edited by Brian Fagan.

    Kris K, there is just no basis in fact for your statements. Mind you, neither is there for your god, so at least you are consistent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. andrei (2,657 comments) says:

    Q7: no scientist paints such a picture. Talk like that is just a product of a fevered imagination fueled by paranoia and fear.

    Do keep up Luc – NYT April 17th 2009

    The Environmental Protection Agency on Friday formally declared carbon dioxide and five other heat-trapping gases to be pollutants that endanger public health and welfare, setting in motion a process that will lead to the regulation of the gases for the first time in the United States.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. PaulL (5,981 comments) says:

    Not to mention Australia’s “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme”.

    Admittedly, neither the EPA nor the Australian govt includes many scientists, so Luc may have us on a technicality there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Crusader (314 comments) says:

    Now the practises disclosed by Climategate do not mean that there is not a link between greenhouse gas emissions and increasing temperatures. Few people argue that.

    DPF
    You are right. Climategate per se does not dicount a link between CO2 and global temperature. It’s the vast gaping lack of supporting evidence that discounts it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Andrei, you appear to be confused. I

    Q7:

    Q: Greenhouse Gases paints a word picture of a captive atmosphere held in by erm, Glass. And not gravity and centrifugal forces.

    To which I replied:

    no scientist paints such a picture. Talk like that is just a product of a fevered imagination fueled by paranoia and fear.

    I assume you pointed out the NYT article for my reply to

    Q: Since when was Co2 described as a pollutant?

    And in reply to you: I was already well aware of the EPA action, and equally aware of attempts in Congress to overrule it. But the fact that CO2 was driving temperature increase was known a long, long time ago. The EPA has just belatedly caught up.

    My education industry advisor teaches, as part of her course, propaganda. I have printed out this thread to send to her because it encapsulates so much that typifies propaganda: lies, distortions, misleading statements, sweeping assertions, ad hominems, slander, libel…all without credible evidence…thank you guys.

    Crusader, there is 450,000 years of correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. Just a modicum of research would quickly appraise you of this. But I fear you just prefer to be contrary, even though you are doing immense disservice to your descendants.

    But then, on this site the selfish gene definitely wins out over the altruistic gene.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Hugh Manatee (108 comments) says:

    How should we feel, knowing that the Government doesn’t believe in Global Warming, yet they willingly tax us as if it were real.

    Thieves!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    @Bevan, March 3rd, 7:18 pm

    Typical facist behaviour, if someone doesnt agree with you call them names.

    At least I didn’t call anyone a “fascist”, Bevan.

    I think “wingnuts” is appropriate terminology for people who cherry pick evidence to attempt to justify a pre-determined ideological position and who run campaigns to disrupt genuine scientists from getting on with their work.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. KiwiGreg (3,255 comments) says:

    “I think “wingnuts” is appropriate terminology for people who cherry pick evidence to attempt to justify a pre-determined ideological position and who run campaigns to disrupt genuine scientists from getting on with their work.”

    Did you have a straight face when you wrote this?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Russell Brown (405 comments) says:

    This seems relevant:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/02/institute-of-physics-emails-inquiry-submission

    In a statement issued today the institute said its written submission to the committee “has been interpreted by some individuals to imply that it does not support the scientific evidence that the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is contributing to global warming.”

    It says: “That is not the case. The institute’s position on climate change is clear: the basic science is well enough understood to be sure that our climate is changing, and that we need to take action now to mitigate that change.”

    The institute said its critical comments were focused on the scientific process, and “should not be interpreted to mean that the institute believes that the science itself is flawed.”

    And:

    The Guardian has been unable to find a member of the board that supports the submission. Two of the scientists listed as members said they had declined to comment on a draft submission prepared by the institute, because they were not climate experts and had not read the UEA emails. Others would not comment or did not respond to enquiries.

    An institute spokesperson said the submission was “strongly supported” by three members of the board. “All members were invited to comment. Only a few did, all concerned approved [the submission] unanimously.”

    It looks a bit shonky, frankly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    ” It looks a bit shonky, frankly.”

    SHONKY….????

    HHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…

    Unbelievable.

    Thanks for the laff Russell.

    I’ll say it again..

    Unbelievable that you have the utter outrageous blind hypocritical gall to apply such criticism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. davidp (3,581 comments) says:

    Toad>I think “wingnuts” is appropriate terminology for people who cherry pick evidence to attempt to justify a pre-determined ideological position and who run campaigns to disrupt genuine scientists from getting on with their work.

    I never thought I’d live to see the day when Toad condemned most Greens as wingnuts!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Russell Brown (405 comments) says:

    When the Institute is obliged to swiftly “clarify” a submission that now doesn’t appear to have the wholehearted support of its own board, yes, it looks very odd.

    But why should you care? The Institute very clearly says its position on climate change “is clear: the basic science is well enough understood to be sure that our climate is changing, and that we need to take action now to mitigate that change,” and must therefore be a fellow traveller in the global AGW conspiracy, along with the major science academies and expert agencies. You know that in your heart, don’t you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    Here’s the full release from the Institute of Physics:

    The Institute of Physics recently submitted a response to a House of Commons Science and Technology Committee call for evidence in relation to its inquiry into the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

    The Institute’s statement, which has been published both on the Institute’s website and the Committee’s, has been interpreted by some individuals to imply that it does not support the scientific evidence that the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is contributing to global warming.

    That is not the case. The Institute’s position on climate change is clear: the basic science is well enough understood to be sure that our climate is changing – and that we need to take action now to mitigate that change.

    The Institute’s response to the Committee inquiry was approved by its Science Board, a formal committee of the Institute with delegated authority from its trustees to oversee its policy work.

    It reflected our belief that the open exchange of data, procedures and materials is fundamental to the scientific process. From the information already in the public domain it appears that these principles have been put at risk in the present case, and that this has undermined the trust that is placed in the scientific process.

    These comments, focused on the scientific process, should not be interpreted to mean that the Institute believes that the science itself is flawed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Pita (373 comments) says:

    Cherry picking Toad?

    Read in isolation your response could appear supportive of your particular objective…however when read in context of what their submission was critical of such things as; the refusal of the CRU to comply with the honourable scientific traditions of freedom of information (data and programs used to arrive at their conclusions).

    Jones said that none of his [peer] reviewers requested the supporting information and, as one of the panel suggested, “They had to take him at his word”…so much for peer review!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Sine IOP are flavour of the month for deniers, there’s this from their pre-Copenhagen press release:

    “Climate models are the best tool we have available for understanding changes in climate, and from these models it seems we are entering an unprecedentedly difficult period for the human race.

    Yep, right on side with the deniers!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    This is a ridiculous situation. It is clear that failure to correctly account for UHI in temperature records has overstated actual warming trends. It has also been agreed that it was warmer in the 1930’s than 1998. The claim that the last decade was the hottest on record is apparently fine even though it is statistically insignificant, while it is not ok to point out that sea levels have actually dropped because that is statistically insignificant.
    Reasonable people are not arguing that there has been no warming, rather that the amount of warming isn’t as high as claimed. Similarly with claims of sea level rise, ice cover, glaciers melting etc.
    When do we say ‘empirical evidence has proved the theory wrong’? Even Schmidt has conceded no statistically significant warming since 1995 FFS.
    I’m all in favour of cleaner and more efficient energy, but this whole AGW business is a red herring to environmental causes. Carbon trading is only going to benefit a-holes like Gore, and our ETS will certainly hit the poor the hardest.
    No global ‘solution’ is going to be effective if China is not on board, which really makes this whole argument academic anyway. Thankfully Copenhagen was a washout, and I’m looking forward to 2012 when (http://www.stephenfranks.co.nz/?p=2610) it would seem an appropriate time to can the ETS.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Billjack (12 comments) says:

    DPF said: “Now the practises disclosed by Climategate do not mean that there is not a link between greenhouse gas emissions and increasing temperatures. Few people argue that.”

    That’s pretty weak David – and incorrect. Millions of people, many of them scientifically literate, know and argue that there is no discernible connection between increased human greenhouse gas emissions and increasing temperatures. Natural greenhouse gases (mainly water vapour) provide the great majority of the warming effect, and they have been doing so for billions of years. The evidence to support the AGW hypothesis is very weak, as you and most others must now realise. The IPCC and its backers are about politics, money and careers – not science. Establishment science has become so corrupted over this issue that it will take decades to recover its reputation – if it ever does. You are to be commended for changing your position as the facts have surfaced, but you need to change it further. As NZ’s most influential blogger, you have a big responsibility to promote the truth. This is probably the most important issue of our generation. Please help to set things right before more damage is inflicted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Pete George (23,567 comments) says:

    Closer to home:

    ….history of the Alexandra Blossom Festival….

    And so, in the past 50 years…..

    ….. the stonefruit blossom itself now peaks on average 10 days or even a fortnight earlier.

    http://www.odt.co.nz/print/96058

    Could be unrelated, or it could be. There is no “truth” to promote, there is a lot of conflicting research, it is very much a work in progress.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Roflcopter (463 comments) says:

    @Toad – “I think “wingnuts” is appropriate terminology for people who cherry pick evidence to attempt to justify a pre-determined ideological position and who run campaigns to disrupt genuine scientists from getting on with their work.”

    Hey Toad, can you say “half a billion hectares of land”?

    What a toss-pot you are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    “Millions of people, many of them scientifically literate, know and argue that there is no discernible connection between increased human greenhouse gas emissions and increasing temperatures.”

    Millions of people such as yourself Billjack? Pfffft :-)

    (But you’re right, I know of several plumbers who are convinced there is no AGW…)

    “As NZ’s most influential blogger, you have a big responsibility to promote the truth. This is probably the most important issue of our generation.”

    Yes because political fan-boy bloggers are so fully capable of reviewing all the current research and seeing through those evil scientist’s plans.
    OMFG it’s nutjob day here again. Must be a day ending in Y.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    Roflcopter said:

    Hey Toad, can you say “half a billion hectares of land”?

    Yeah, dumb copy and paste from a media story without engaging brain. The sort of mistake anyone can make – I don’t pretend the Greens are immune from that.

    Like DPF’s lapse into innumeracy this morning, which I see he has now corrected.

    However 120 hours may be a bit too high. That means a (probable) parent spending two hours a day supervising their kid for 60 weeks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,752 comments) says:

    Give it a rest Russell. Your precious socialism died with the collapse of the USSR.

    AGW won’t be resurrecting your failed hopes and dreams.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Pete, what “conflicting research” can you point to, as opposed to uncertainties inherent in climate study, which often actually increase with research, as this January 2010 article in Nature explains.

    Be careful, Pete, not to confuse lies, distortions, scurrilous personal attacks and simple denial of reality (the same as we see in the god-botherers) with research. Can you point to any articles published in the most prestigious science journals that actually confirm your “conflicting research” theory?

    It’s terribly offensive watching the rich (in global terms) white racists here desperate to defend their own emissions laden lifestyle while the poorest in the world continue to pay the price, this time in the disappearance of their ancestral homeland

    Kiribati is a prime example: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=undp+kiribati&search_type=&aq=f

    And then they demonise China and India when the facts are that 20% of the global human population is responsible for 80% of the emissions currently in our atmosphere (and in the main, yes, they are from us rich whities, as Hone Harawira would rightly point out) and that the poorest 800,000,000 are responsible for less than 1%.

    So it’s OK for us to get rich by polluting the atmosphere, but it’s not OK for us to correct that.

    Very evenhanded, like, not.

    The fantasy that you (mainly) men here inhabit that AGW theory is somehow in question and/or under threat is only the product of your own fears, delusions and self-aggrandising contrarianism, and a complete distraction from the supremely important actions needed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    Luc, Luc, Luc, why are you wasting your time?

    The science has been settles and the science has shown that AGW does not exist. The debate is over and your side lost. The overwhelming consensus now is that man made carbon dioxide doesnt affect the climate at all.

    There is data (that you cant have) and charts (that you are not allowed to question) that have shown AGW to be a bunk theory.

    Why do you keep repeating the same discredited lies? Are you being paid to maintain a campaign of disinformation?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Paid?

    Kimble!

    ssshhh…just between you and me, a bloody fortune, paid weekly from Al Gore’s secret Swiss account!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. davidp (3,581 comments) says:

    Luc H>It’s terribly offensive watching the rich (in global terms) white racists here desperate to defend their own emissions laden lifestyle while the poorest in the world continue to pay the price, this time in the disappearance of their ancestral homeland. Kiribati is a prime example: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=undp+kiribati&search_type=&aq=f

    OMG! You’re actually promoting Kiribati as a victim of rising sea levels, even tho it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Kiribati’s problems are due to erosion, over-extraction of resources, and over-population. You certainly don’t lack for chutzpah, even if you’re either ignorant or a fraud who resorts to shouting “racism” and other insults rather than relying on science.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/27/floating-islands/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    Luc, the debate is OVER! The science is SETTLED!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    toad, that isnt innumeracy, it is obvious what DPF meant to write.

    What the greens did was accept a VBN (very big number) because they really, really didnt understand what it was. They didnt accidently say hectares instead of acres.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    davidp

    Watts is just too contemptible to even reply to.

    Sattelite data quantifies our steadily rising sea levels. Every 1mm sea level rise eventually claims 1500m of land – and this is an average. Low lying islands like Kiribati, Bangladesh, and many islands of Indonesia are much worse affected. And eventually, all seaside cities, and most major cities are seaside, will be affected.

    Don’t you wonder why Britain has already earmarked billions to shore up their sea defences, in the knowledge that if sea level rise gets to the 4-6m mark, it’s time for London to move!

    And the good news is – it’s largely avoidable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    London is on a large tidal, very tidal, estuarine river Luc that is affected during the normal course of events and has been for centuries.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. tom hunter (4,852 comments) says:

    OMFG it’s nutjob day here again. Must be a day ending in Y.

    Speaking of nutjobs

    Argentines Francisco Lotero, 56, and Miriam Coletti, 23, shot their children before killing themselves after making an apparent suicide pact over fears about global warming.

    So I guess we skeptics can’t roll our eyes anymore when Toad and co. claim that AGW has claimed lives! They weren’t in email contact with Toad and Russell were they?

    And could there be more such victims? I mean poor old Luc here is still in denial over what his marching for Ho Chi Min really meant for the poor bastards in Vietnam – and that was 30 years ago. Judging from this thread I don’t think he can take much more.

    I noted some weeks ago Luc’s explanation that he’s not really here to engage but to speak to the silent readers beyond. Looking at the quality of his arguments I’d say not engaging was a wise move, but even for the larger audience……

    It’s terribly offensive watching the rich (in global terms) white racists here desperate to defend their own emissions laden lifestyle while the poorest in the world continue to pay the price

    …..is hardly going to win friends and influence people. Way to go Luc: more, more!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED GODAMMIT!!!! SETTLED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THERE IS CONSENSUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Hey Tom, friends like you I don’t need!

    The poor bastards in Vietnam, as you put it, are at least alive, unlike when the US was committing war crimes on them and their neighbours: napalm, carpet bombing Cambodia and Laos, killing whole village populations to save them from the commies…you get my drift?

    As I remember, the excuse for the Vietnam war was some sort of domino game gone wrong – if we lost the commies were going to take us all over! – so an “event” was manufactured in the local seas to justify that particular US imperialist adventure.

    We did lose, and, um, where are the commies, Tom? Still hiding under the bed? Saying gidday to Joe McCarthy in the great rest home in the ether?

    Let’s face it Tom, I was right, you were wrong. People don’t actually want the peace of the dead before their time. As Iraq proves, you can’t force democracy down peoples throats at the point of a gun – or under a cloud of white phosphorous.

    And Tom, really, what do you want me to say about the Argentinians? If the report is true, poor buggers. But how does it change the conclusions of all of our best climate scientists?

    expat, if preparing for a different future frightens you that much, just hold that thought, OK?

    Kimble, quite right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. tom hunter (4,852 comments) says:

    Let’s face it Tom, I was right, you were wrong.

    See. Denial! Pity you can’t be as honest as Joan Baez, she at least was willing to recognise what she had midwifed.

    But perhaps we should leave the last quote to Pham Xuan An, legendary Time correspondent – and Vietcong spy.

    ”All that talk of ‘liberation’, all the plotting and all the bodies, produced this, this impoverished, broken-down country led by a gang of cruel and paternalistic half-educated theorists.”

    You seem to have a fondness for theorists, whether half-educated or not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. tom hunter (4,852 comments) says:

    I’d add the fact that impoverished, broken-down societies always seem to follow from the theorists you support Luc. Looking at this whole AGW thread you clearly have learned nothing.

    As far as McCarthyism is concerned – you’re projecting. If there is one group today who specialise in creating fear and shouting about nefarious forces controlling our world and plotting our destruction – it’s you and your ilk.

    You might want to lay off that fear factor too. As you can see above it’s clearly cost lives already. You would not more blood on your hands to add to what you already piled up in the 1970’s would you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Tom, you continue to miss the point. The country may be broken down, but it’s their country, it’s their business, and it’s up to them to sort it out. That way, when it does get sorted, it will stay sorted.

    There is a saying about the ruthless dictators the US habitually supports (think Mubarak, the easiest example that comes to mind):

    (imagine a southern drawl) “He may be a ruthless dictator, but he’s our ruthless dictator.”

    I think often of a quote attributed to Ghandi, at a time when the British justified their continued occupation of India on the grounds that civil war would break out if they left. Ghandi said: “It’s none of your business. Just pack your bags and go!”

    Get that Tom? Vietnam is a sovereign country, not threatening anyone else, striking trade agreements everywhere, including with (and exhibiting great forgiveness) the US. It’s none of our business.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    And tom, unlike you, obviously, I care about the world I leave for my children and grandchildren (my baby daughter is younger than my grandchildren, so I will have, hopefully, grandchildren running around for quite a while yet!).

    All the credible scientists tell us, compellingly, what we have wrought on the planet and it’s consequences. If they are wrong, so be it, but I am not going to bet on them being wrong.

    You want to steal the future from our descendants.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. KiwiGreg (3,255 comments) says:

    Wow Luc you are so much more caring and sensitive than the rest of us, truly a better human being. For that alone you should be given the power to tell us how to live our lives, even as you give the Vietnamese carte blanche to do what they will.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. KiwiGreg (3,255 comments) says:

    “All the credible scientists tell us, compellingly, what we have wrought on the planet and it’s consequences. If they are wrong, so be it, but I am not going to bet on them being wrong.”

    I love crap like this. Because anyone telling you differently is either (a) not a scientist or (b) not credible. Thus the entire religion sustains itself.

    I’m ok with you believing but the problem is the cost of your bet that they are right won’t fall solely on you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    KG 9.01am

    No, I don’t want power over peoples lives. I prefer to empower people, but not by murdering them! The Vietnamese need to sort out their own act, as they are doing, and there are plenty of much more repressive countries than Vietnam who we deal with in the normal course of events. So get real. Are you really saying that the Vietnamese people would be better placed if the US had pursued its war? To its bitter end? How many Vietnamese would have been left?

    KG 9.02 am

    There is no belief involved. Just as when my doctor tells me I need to do certain things for my health, and my mechanic tells me my car needs new spark plugs, and my plumber tells me I need to clean my drains, I accept the advice of the climate scientists that we need to reduce CO2 and other emissions.

    It’s not rocket science.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Sea level has fallen recently, keep up

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Fair enough, your evidence?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Intersting chart showing Global Temperature Trends From 2500 B.C. To 2040 A.D.

    http://www.longrangeweather.com/images/GTEMPS.gif

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    RB, I had a quick look: neither the MWP nor the LIA are classified as global events.

    It’s junk science of the worst kind.

    WTF motivates these people, like RB, to jeopardise the future of their children and grandchildren?

    The selfish gene?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Manolo (13,780 comments) says:

    What motivates people, like Luc Hansen, to jeopardise our present and future of children and grandchildren?
    The socialist gene? Or is it plain lunacy?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Well Luc, if RB is anything like me, he’s actually enhancing the future for his kids by ensuring they are financially literate and secure, and attempting to stem the theft of their future incomes to line the pockets of the likes of Al Gore, Pachauri, Jones, Soros.
    The debate is over for most of us Luc, it is now just a matter of sitting back and waiting for the empirical evidence to reach the critical mass where no amount of manipulation can make it submit to supporting the meme of AGW.
    Lets hope something positive comes from it. I’m hoping for more transparency and accountability from scientists who are publically funded. There’s something rotten in the state of climate ‘science’ and it needs to be exposed to the sunlight.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    This is a chart prepared by a climatologist and a metorologist Luc.

    What are you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. AG (1,827 comments) says:

    Seeing as we’re all in favour of openness, etc, this story from the Guardian ought to be of interest …

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/05/climate-emails-institute-of-physics-submission

    “A spokeswoman for the institute [of physics] said Gill [an energy industry consultant who argues that global warming is a religion] was not the main source of information nor did the evidence primarily reflect his views; other members of the sub-commitee were also critical of CRU. However the IOP would not reveal names because they would get “dragged into a very public and highly politicised debate”.”

    Pot. Kettle. Black.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote