Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation - Telegraph »
Posted By Tasine 2 months, 1 week ago in NewsOur hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get
away with the Climategate whitewash regarding statistics for global warming,
says Christopher Booker
The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Read Full Story at telegraph.co.uk »
345 Views Share Story 52 Comments Report
Submitted By:
Tasine
Have lived a long and great life and expect many more years of the same! Life is good.
Who Also Submitted: All »
Other Related Articles: All »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 52 (view all)
-
73%
slate2 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
None of this information matters to those that dropped the story.
Reply
They already bought the product.
They've already said the debate was over, shut up and spend trillions, it makes no difference if the data has been manipulated to get desired outcomes.
Now if they had said, hey let's spend less, and try and clean up our planet (something already being done here in the US), we would have been on board.
However, when the data of the sun's effect being brushed aside and the only data that is being used is data that MAN (especially the US and other western nations) causes it. Cha-Chinge pay dirt. -
mesodudeComment removed: Retracted by user19 Replies
-
50%
cjsmay2 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It has been abundantly clear the last ten years that the truth is very elusive or absolutely impossible to descern.We need a complete reform of the media and the dumbed down USA citizens and their representives.Talk about ," out of business" that is the USA today.I believe it is time to start over and honesty should be job one.
Reply -
60%
cjsmay2 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
When the pesident of the USA does not even know who our enemies are it is time to worry , " BIG TIME ".Such is the case today in our republic.Half the time our representatives can not even find the White House.Owh and the constitution, for get about it.
Reply -
83%
almos_vagyok2 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Some information on the author of the article in the Telegraph
Reply
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker
Booker's scientific claims, which include the false assertion that white asbestos (chrysotile) is "chemically identical to talcum powder"[8] were also analysed in detail by Richard Wilson in his book Don't Get Fooled Again (2008). (The chemical formula for talc is H2Mg3(SiO3)4 or Mg3Si4O10(OH)2, while the formula for chrysotile, the primary ingredient of white asbestos, is Mg3(Si2O5)(OH)4. It is worth noting that even if the composition were identical, which it clearly isn't, the actually structure/connectivity is what is significant, a situation well known in chemistry as isomerism at a molecular level and polymorphism (materials science) in the case of non-molecular materials or crystals. What makes chrysotile dangerous is not its composition - silicates are common - but its fibrous structure.
Wilson highlighted Christopher Booker's repeated endorsement of the alleged scientific expertise of John Bridle, who has claimed to be "the world's foremost authority on asbestos science", but who in 2005 was convicted under the UK's Trade Descriptions Act[9] of making false claims about his qualifications, and who the BBC has accused of basing his reputation on "lies about his credentials, unaccredited tests, and self aggrandisement".[10]
Christopher Booker's scientific claims about asbestos have been criticized several times by the UK government's Health and Safety Executive. In 2002, the HSE's Director General, Timothy Walker, wrote that Booker's articles on asbestos had been "misinformed and do little to increase public understanding of a very important occupational health issue."[11]
In 2005, the Health and Safety Executive issued a rebuttal[12] after Christopher Booker wrote an article suggesting, incorrectly, that the HSE had agreed with him that white asbestos posed "no medical risk"[13].
In 2006, the HSE published a further rebuttal[14] after Christopher Booker had claimed, again incorrectly, that the Health and Safety Laboratory had concluded that the white asbestos contained within Artex textured coatings posed "no health risk".[15]
In May 2008, the Health and Safety Executive accused Booker of writing an article that was "substantially misleading"[16]. In the article[17], published by the Sunday Telegraph earlier that month, Booker had claimed, falsely, that a paper produced in 2000 by two HSE statisticians, Hodgson and Darnton[18], had 'concluded that the risk of contracting mesothelioma from white asbestos cement was "insignificant", while that of lung cancer was "zero"'. -
54%
Klarissa2 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world.
Reply
Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.
They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.
This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record,
which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost".
Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.-
88%
Progressive2 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Jones email Beck read was distorted, "pulled out of context"
Reply
From the November 23 broadcast of Glenn Beck:
BECK: How about Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia? "I have just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years to hide the decline." Yes, he is talking about a trick that another scientist previously used in a peer-reviewed journal to apparently hide the decline in temperatures. Incredible.
RealClimate.org: Jones' email "pulled out of context." In a November 20 post, Real Climate's staff, which is made up of several working climate scientists, cited Jones' 1999 email -- which Beck read -- as "[o]ne example" of "instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded 'gotcha' phrases [being] pulled out of context." Jones' November 16, 1999, email reads:
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic.] from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
LSE Prof: Scientists use "trick" to mean "a clever way of doing something." A November 20 Guardian article reported that Bob Ward, director of policy and communications at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, said of Jones' email: "It does look incriminating on the surface, but there are lots of single sentences that taken out of context can appear incriminating. ... You can't tell what they are talking about. Scientists say 'trick' not just to mean deception. They mean it as a clever way of doing something - a short cut can be a trick."
RealClimate.org: "trick" Jones referenced is a method for making the "context of the recent warming ... clear" and isn't "problematic ... at all."
http://mediamatters.org/research/200911230052
-
-
-
83%
NoWayMan2 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
whats great is that since this story came out about these emails, the ice caps have stopped melting, the mosquito lines along the equator have recessed back to where they were ten years ago, and all the world's droughts have ended.
Reply-
fiftynineComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
86%
jimdoze2 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What's great is that shortly before there was global warming, there was global cooling... less than a geological twinkling of an eye ago glaciers were advancing, the ice caps were growing and no one knew a thing about mosquito lines except that where you were getting bitten, including above the artic circle, it was annoying.
Reply
Submit a Story
Advertisement
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.