Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
durbster said:
It's repeatedly said that people are deliberately corrupting data and infiltrating the world's scientific organisations and Governments, but nobody seems to know who is doing it.
As per usual a blatant strawman, you know that's not how it works, it's a sociopolitical movement and a confluence of interests. You might as well ask who is it controlling the infiltration of trade unions or the BBC or the Guardian with Labour supporters.There is not 1 head of Islamic extremism controlling everything is there? It's a movement and the supporters arise and act independently but towards a broadly similar objective, for a variety of motives, from just liking killing people, to genuinely believing it is Allah's will.
Now that the Exxon-knew nonsense is collapsing. it is a matter of conspiracy FACT that everything from the 'investigative' articles that supposedly triggered it all onwards, was carefully planned and orchestrated - do you deny that too?
durbster said:
Right, I followed the money and it leads to the multi-billionaire Koch funding of anti-AGW propaganda. Now what?
Which just proves why it's pointless 'debating' with a deluded willfully blind person like you.(a) You believe your own propaganda.
(b) You ignore government funding research/institutes etc. - 80:1 in favour of supporting the CAGW paradigm.
(c) You ignore Rockefeller cash/influence.
All your trite snide allegations of secret money Big Oil/Koch's brother funding add up to a few $million v $10s of trillions. In fact Big Oil has funded more pro-AGW research $wise than anti.
PRTVR said:
hidetheelephants said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
hidetheelephants said:
The daft bat in charge of National Grid is being quoted on Today that we don't need baseload anymore, as smart electrickery and magic batteries will cure all. I've heard some b
ks in my time and that was some of it; statements predicated upon wishful thinking are not something I look for from a CEO. Harrabin then chimed in, as clearly there hadn't been enough bks talked, and promulgated that nuclear was uniquely ill-suited to operate alongside renewables as it can't load-follow... 
I heard that segment, on the face of that, a domestic genset will be a basic requirement in a year or two.ks in my time and that was some of it; statements predicated upon wishful thinking are not something I look for from a CEO. Harrabin then chimed in, as clearly there hadn't been enough bks talked, and promulgated that nuclear was uniquely ill-suited to operate alongside renewables as it can't load-follow... If that woman is making decision on the functioning of the National grid, shares in candle makers are going to go crazy.
k did she get to be in charge of anything,let alone the national grid, the things she talked about are years away from development,let alone implementation on a large scale, the coal fired power stations are going off line, nuclear plants are running past their sell by dates and demand is increasing, (population growth) now and she said there is no need to worry, obviously she has spoken to the fairies at the bottom of her garden and they have told her things will be OK.
t hits the fan. I imagine when the blackouts really kick in we'll see a lot of her spouting the usual nonsense before being forced to resign and replaced with someone who understands the issues. Meanwhile in the background there will be the unmistakeable sound of a thousand fracking rigs firing into action.
zygalski said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
As per usual a blatant strawman, you know that's not how it works, it's a sociopolitical movement and a confluence of interests....
So a conspiracy then.A conspiracy entails a group or groups planning something.
A confluence of interests occurs where independently formed interests happen to align.
The term I've used previously (a coincidence of vested interests) also recognises the lack of concerted planning via the term 'coincidence'.
The conspiracy nonsense is still a strawman, however many smileys or laughies or rofls are given work to support The Cause.
turbobloke said:
zygalski said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
As per usual a blatant strawman, you know that's not how it works, it's a sociopolitical movement and a confluence of interests....
So a conspiracy then.A conspiracy entails a group or groups planning something.
A confluence of interests occurs where independently formed interests happen to align.
The term I've used previously (a coincidence of vested interests) also recognises the lack of concerted planning via the term 'coincidence'.
The conspiracy nonsense is still a strawman, however many rofls are given work.
university of Colorado Actually BANS Students From Questioning Climate Change
http://louderwithcrowder.com/university-of-colorad...
http://louderwithcrowder.com/university-of-colorad...
s2art said:
turbobloke said:
zygalski said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
As per usual a blatant strawman, you know that's not how it works, it's a sociopolitical movement and a confluence of interests....
So a conspiracy then.A conspiracy entails a group or groups planning something.
A confluence of interests occurs where independently formed interests happen to align.
The term I've used previously (a coincidence of vested interests) also recognises the lack of concerted planning via the term 'coincidence'.
The conspiracy nonsense is still a strawman, however many rofls are given work.
turbobloke said:
Basic comprehension fail.
A conspiracy entails a group or groups planning something.
A confluence of interests occurs where independently formed interests happen to align.
The term I've used previously (a coincidence of vested interests) also recognises the lack of concerted planning via the term 'coincidence'.
The conspiracy nonsense is still a strawman, however many smileys or laughies or rofls are given work to support The Cause.
Baffling.A conspiracy entails a group or groups planning something.
A confluence of interests occurs where independently formed interests happen to align.
The term I've used previously (a coincidence of vested interests) also recognises the lack of concerted planning via the term 'coincidence'.
The conspiracy nonsense is still a strawman, however many smileys or laughies or rofls are given work to support The Cause.
You claim data has been deliberately corrupted, but you're saying nobody planned to do it?
You claim people have deliberately infiltrated various scientific organisations to spread a message based on lies. But they didn't plan to do this and just so happened to find themselves as spokesperson for NASA operating without reproach.
You claim peer-review has failed because all the AGW science is reviewed by friends with vested interests, but that isn't a "group planning something"?
You claim David Bellamy was sacked by the BBC because he was a denier (grossly misleading, I checked), but that can only be the case if the BBC was deliberately preventing deniers from having a voice i.e. a group planning something.
The anti-AGW argument as laid out in this thread is a conspiracy theory in every conceivable sense. But rather than accept that, you're going to bluster your way through while your argument collapses in on itself.
Whatever it takes to kick that can further down the road, I guess.
durbster said:
You claim David Bellamy was sacked by the BBC because he was a denier (grossly misleading, I checked), but that can only be the case if the BBC was deliberately preventing deniers from having a voice i.e. a group planning something.
Errr...knock, knockYou do know they had a meeting to consult AGW "experts" and concluded the science was settled and no voice of dissent would henceforth be broadcast...don't you?
And you do know they refused to name those "experts"...all the way to Court...don't you?
Come on, durbs, thought you were on top of this research crusade thing, do try to keep up.
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
Basic comprehension fail.
A conspiracy entails a group or groups planning something.
A confluence of interests occurs where independently formed interests happen to align.
The term I've used previously (a coincidence of vested interests) also recognises the lack of concerted planning via the term 'coincidence'.
The conspiracy nonsense is still a strawman, however many smileys or laughies or rofls are given work to support The Cause.
Baffling.A conspiracy entails a group or groups planning something.
A confluence of interests occurs where independently formed interests happen to align.
The term I've used previously (a coincidence of vested interests) also recognises the lack of concerted planning via the term 'coincidence'.
The conspiracy nonsense is still a strawman, however many smileys or laughies or rofls are given work to support The Cause.
durbster said:
You claim data has been deliberately corrupted, but you're saying nobody planned to do it?
A person planning something is not a conspiracy.To be a conspiracy, at least two persons or two groups of persons must plan together to do it, see the definition above which you're free to check. Then, to cement your case, find a quote from me on PH you can link to where your claim can be verified, where I say clearly that nobody planned to do it. Why would I say that anyway?!
For the global warming "coincidence of vested interests" to be a consipracy there needs to be concerted planning between uni researchers, subsidy farmers, nonjobbers in climate nonjobs, ecotype charities, z-list celebs, and the poor bl**dy infantry who can't answer the most basic of Viscount Monckton's questions outside COP carbonfests. This notion is of course nonsensical and demonstrates that the idea of a conspiracy is purely a construct from those who set it up in order to argue against it.
A strawman, in other words. As to the coincidence of vested interests, mostly bandwaggoning, no problems exist there.
voyds9 said:
Is the raw unadulterated data available?
Or do we only get it after it has been 'corrected'.
It's a mix, but as far as the near-surface data is concerned, the various datasets aren't independent so all are tarnished by GDP/UHIE/LULC contamination, by subsitution, and for SST by the bizarre decision to move from more accurate and less heat-contaminated buoy data to less accurate and more heat-contaminated ship intake data.Or do we only get it after it has been 'corrected'.
One specific instance relates to Phil Jones of Climategate infamy who admitted to MPs that the UEA CRU withheld raw station data about global temperatures from around the world, as not sharing data was standard practice in climate science.
Jones also claims that data records underpinning a 1990 global warming study have been lost.
No further comment is needed at this point, particularly with the Climategate emails available for scrutiny.
durbster said:
Baffling.
You claim data has been deliberately corrupted, but you're saying nobody planned to do it?
Are you saying that it was "accidentally" altered?You claim data has been deliberately corrupted, but you're saying nobody planned to do it?
I really don't understand how anybody can believe that altered data can mean anything.
If the original data was not accurate, then it should be discarded.
Altering it to suit your preconceptions renders it useless.
durbster said:
I'm not, I'm just asking for specifics, not vague speculation.
Which politicians have personally gained and how?
An interesting challenge durbster although I am slightly surprised you decided to offer it.Which politicians have personally gained and how?
How should we progress this list folks? Create it here or link to existing lists elsewhere?
USA:
Let's start with the obvious ones.
Vice President Al Gore
UK:
John Selwyn Gummer aka Lord Deben
Former MP Tim Yeo
durbster said:
What have climate scientists gained? More funding? Fame, bhes and bling?
Fundinghes and bling?Recognition within their areas of "specialism".
Wider fame or infamy depending on your point of view.
A platform from which to promote their ideas about all things.
In some cases a criminal record.
Kudos and recognition amongst one's peers can be a very powerful driving force in science. VERY powerful.
A job for life if they play it right - important in these days of lost tenure.
durbster said:
And we're almost a generation into climate change and the Greens and communists (come on, seriously? 
) are hardly wielding great power are they.
You could perhaps consider the effect of one Bryony Worthington.) are hardly wielding great power are they.She is probably the most visible influence of the direct effect on UK legislation.
durbster said:
It's repeatedly said that people are deliberately corrupting data and infiltrating the world's scientific organisations and Governments, but nobody seems to know who is doing it.
This has been covered so many times I am not going to encourage further discussion. Others might.Did somebody mention Al Gore?
There are various beneficiaries, some have come to light already, for example this one in 2015.
Jagadish Shukla has obtained federal grants relating to climate science in the name of George Mason University (his uni) and the Institute for Global Environment and Security Inc (IGES).
In 2001, the earliest year for which data is available, in addition to his university salary, Shukla and his wife received a further $214,496 in compensation from IGES (Jagadish Shukla $128,796 & Anne Shukla $85,700).
Their combined compensation from IGES then doubled over the next two years to approximately $400,000 (additional to Shukla’s university salary), for combined compensation of about $530,000 by 2004.
Shukla’s university salary increased dramatically over the decade reaching $250,866 by 2013 and $314,000 by 2014. The above organization (IGES) just happens to be staffed by several Shukla family members.
Shukla appears to have paid himself and his wife a total of $5.6 million in compensation...a House of Representatives Committee on Science Space and Technology 'preservation' letter to Shukla at IGES formally directs the non-destuction of emails and data. It also indicates IGES has received $63m from taxpayers since 2001, with NASA and NOAA involved, representing 98% of its income (pdf at link).
https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.scienc...
There's a link with Shukla's department to Mann via another source of largesse, the National Science Foundation, in terms of David Verardo, Mann’s "handler" at NSF.
This and more is widely available online (search: Shukla's Gold) and has been mentioned in PH climate threads from time to time.
Earlier this year climate grant recipient Daniel Alongi was indicted by Australian authorities and accused of obtaining up to half a million dollars fraudulently. Apparently he has already admitted to police that he made false invoices / credit card statements / created fake email trails relating to money and his 'research', this is accoring to Court documents.
Further back (05 May 1997) we had this curious content in a Climategate email sent to Keith Briffa at UEA CRU. Tax avoidance is lawful, it's the personal accounts not uni or research group accounts which may catch the eye. There may be a valid explanation; this is another item discussed at various times and places in online Climategate email reviews. "Also, it is important for us if you can transfer the ADVANCE money on the personal accounts which we gave you earlier and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day) will not be more than 10,000 USD. Only in this case we can avoid big taxes and use money for our work as much as possible."
Another port of call in the Climategate emails is this related message: "I am told that the money transfer (5000 u.s. dollars) should have gone to the bank account you stated. Please let me know if this is received by you. I am also sending (redacted)’s 5000 dollars to Switzerland now to be carried back by his colleague."
Interested parties can follow up any of the above and more very easily as the primary sources including Climategate emails are available online, uninterested parties may want to see if these are available for purchase.
There are various beneficiaries, some have come to light already, for example this one in 2015.
Jagadish Shukla has obtained federal grants relating to climate science in the name of George Mason University (his uni) and the Institute for Global Environment and Security Inc (IGES).
In 2001, the earliest year for which data is available, in addition to his university salary, Shukla and his wife received a further $214,496 in compensation from IGES (Jagadish Shukla $128,796 & Anne Shukla $85,700).
Their combined compensation from IGES then doubled over the next two years to approximately $400,000 (additional to Shukla’s university salary), for combined compensation of about $530,000 by 2004.
Shukla’s university salary increased dramatically over the decade reaching $250,866 by 2013 and $314,000 by 2014. The above organization (IGES) just happens to be staffed by several Shukla family members.
Shukla appears to have paid himself and his wife a total of $5.6 million in compensation...a House of Representatives Committee on Science Space and Technology 'preservation' letter to Shukla at IGES formally directs the non-destuction of emails and data. It also indicates IGES has received $63m from taxpayers since 2001, with NASA and NOAA involved, representing 98% of its income (pdf at link).
https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.scienc...
There's a link with Shukla's department to Mann via another source of largesse, the National Science Foundation, in terms of David Verardo, Mann’s "handler" at NSF.
This and more is widely available online (search: Shukla's Gold) and has been mentioned in PH climate threads from time to time.
Earlier this year climate grant recipient Daniel Alongi was indicted by Australian authorities and accused of obtaining up to half a million dollars fraudulently. Apparently he has already admitted to police that he made false invoices / credit card statements / created fake email trails relating to money and his 'research', this is accoring to Court documents.
Further back (05 May 1997) we had this curious content in a Climategate email sent to Keith Briffa at UEA CRU. Tax avoidance is lawful, it's the personal accounts not uni or research group accounts which may catch the eye. There may be a valid explanation; this is another item discussed at various times and places in online Climategate email reviews. "Also, it is important for us if you can transfer the ADVANCE money on the personal accounts which we gave you earlier and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day) will not be more than 10,000 USD. Only in this case we can avoid big taxes and use money for our work as much as possible."
Another port of call in the Climategate emails is this related message: "I am told that the money transfer (5000 u.s. dollars) should have gone to the bank account you stated. Please let me know if this is received by you. I am also sending (redacted)’s 5000 dollars to Switzerland now to be carried back by his colleague."
Interested parties can follow up any of the above and more very easily as the primary sources including Climategate emails are available online, uninterested parties may want to see if these are available for purchase.
turbobloke said:
A person planning something is not a conspiracy.
To be a conspiracy, at least two persons or two groups of persons must plan together to do it, see the definition above which you're free to check. Then, to cement your case, find a quote from me on PH you can link to where your claim can be verified, where I say clearly that nobody planned to do it. Why would I say that anyway?!
Blimey, what a merry dance. To be a conspiracy, at least two persons or two groups of persons must plan together to do it, see the definition above which you're free to check. Then, to cement your case, find a quote from me on PH you can link to where your claim can be verified, where I say clearly that nobody planned to do it. Why would I say that anyway?!
turbobloke said:
For the global warming "coincidence of vested interests" to be a consipracy there needs to be concerted planning between uni researchers, subsidy farmers, nonjobbers in climate nonjobs, ecotype charities, z-list celebs, and the poor bl**dy infantry
Nope. A conspiracy is when a group of people conspire to do something (as per your definition). It doesn't have to include all of them to be a conspiracy, just one will do. Let's take one: NOAA. We're told in this thread they are "corrupting" the data to deliberately show non-existent warming (even though there's clear warming before adjustments, but never mind). If that's true, that's a conspiracy because there must be multiple people involved for that to happen.
Whatever way you spin it, it's either one big global conspiracy, or lots of small ones. Coincidence doesn't come into it.
The cult posits they're all at it, from Government to media to scientists. Whether collaboratively or independently doesn't matter (although what a coincidence that latter would be!).
don4l said:
I really don't understand how anybody can believe that altered data can mean anything.
Just because you don't understand it does not mean it's fraud.If you're unable to accept that measurements sometimes have errors so need to be corrected then fine, just look at the raw data. You'll see the results are pretty much the same and this great adjustment controversy is a complete dud.
voyds9 said:
Is the raw unadulterated data available?
Or do we only get it after it has been 'corrected'.
Yep, the data is in the public domain (and always has been) e.g.Or do we only get it after it has been 'corrected'.
HADCRUT4:
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
NASA GISS:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
RSS data:
http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temper...
turbobloke said:
To which can be added, raw data is available from both hemispheres e.g. Oz, NZ, N America and these temperature datasets are flat for the last ~100 years.
Really? What source?LongQ said:
durbster said:
I'm not, I'm just asking for specifics, not vague speculation.
Which politicians have personally gained and how?
An interesting challenge durbster although I am slightly surprised you decided to offer it...Which politicians have personally gained and how?
So the story is: scientists in the mid-late 20th Century made up AGW to make Al Gore and a couple of minor British politicians wealthy?
LongQ said:
Funding
Recognition within their areas of "specialism".
Wider fame or infamy depending on your point of view.
A platform from which to promote their ideas about all things.
In some cases a criminal record.
Kudos and recognition amongst one's peers can be a very powerful driving force in science. VERY powerful.
A job for life if they play it right - important in these days of lost tenure.
Again, not a valid argument for the simple fact that, whether AGW is true or not, every one of these things is inevitable. Recognition within their areas of "specialism".
Wider fame or infamy depending on your point of view.
A platform from which to promote their ideas about all things.
In some cases a criminal record.
Kudos and recognition amongst one's peers can be a very powerful driving force in science. VERY powerful.
A job for life if they play it right - important in these days of lost tenure.
It's as inevitable as politicians exploiting circumstances to make £.
Unless all these people are deliberately part of the conspiracy, it's not proof of anything.
Otherwise you could throw this argument anywhere. The Higgs boson was made up because Brian Cox wanted a bigger house.
Relativity was made up so Einstein could become popular etc.
durbster said:
just one will do
A conspiracy of one That's as bad as seeing the invisible signal.
Other related gloop ignored as unworthy of more attrition loop time.
durbster said:
Let's take one: NOAA. We're told in this thread they are "corrupting" the data to deliberately show non-existent warming (even though there's clear warming before adjustments, but never mind).
No there isn't clear warming before adjustments. There is raw data from both hemispheres (Oz, NZ, USA, Canada) which shows no warming trend over 100-150 years, the 150 being NZ iircdurbster said:
Hm. Not a very compelling list after several decades of lies and corruption involving hundreds of thousands of people.
See my post after LongQ's and there are more, as you must know.Most of the rest is also in reply to LongQ, and the verbals are not at all convincing.
Carry on looping. PH is an open forum, unlike AGW advocacy blogs.
turbobloke said:
durbster said:
just one will do
A conspiracy of one That's as bad as seeing the invisible signal.
Other related gloop ignored as unworthy of more attrition loop time.
As we agreed, a conspiracy involves several people. There is more than one person working at NOAA.
If people at the NOAA are corrupting the data, that is a conspiracy.
turbobloke said:
No there isn't clear warming before adjustments. There is raw data from both hemispheres (Oz, NZ, USA, Canada) which shows no warming trend over 100-150 years, the 150 being NZ iirc
Source please.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff