Scientists studying fossils and minerals from Arctic Svalbard, in Norway, have discovered evidence that the ‘greenhouse’ climate of the Cretaceous period was punctuated by a sudden drop in global temperatures.
Archive for April, 2010
Politics For All
Lets look at the people.
Take the Prime Minister.
In reality Gordon Brown is a Fabian socialist come communist, who was assisted into politics by the Scottish Communist party.
As Paul Routeledge, his astute political biographer states…….”The crafty – ruthless, even – campaign to secure the safe seat of Dunfermline East for Gordon Brown may appear unsavoury at this distance……..that the Communist Party was closely involved in this [election] process, ostensibly at arm’s length, but in reality at the heart of the wheeler-dealing, was also accepted.
Next David Miliband
stands poised in the wings – the brighter of two young communist educated MPs in Brown’s cabinet, and fresh from his earlier ‘fling’ with Ruth Kelly. But the Miliband communist and marxist roots have recently been laid bare. The grandfather Samuel served in the Soviet Army, whilst their father Ralph moved to the safety of Britain. In true communist style he then attacked the political democracy of the UK – the very country providing him and his family with safety. He later become a leading name in the Marxist movement.
He even had the society status and contacts to be buried in Highgate cemetary close to Karl Marx.
Other New Labour communist linked MPs include Straw, Hain, Blunkett, Reid, Hodge, Milburn, Mandelson, Charles Clarke and of course….
Son of barrister Leo Blair who worked as a copy boy on the communist Daily Worker and was secretary of the Scottish Young Communist league 1938 – 1941.
Blair we should also remember assisted the formation of the marxist Demos think-tank, which in turn helped form the new labour project.
Should we trust these people? Only as a rabbit trusts a weasel.
After the ‘reds’ and in the blue corner we have…
an Eton educated man, now the leader of the Tories.
Cameron has a whole string of donors, and they have access to big money as earlier press reports have already revealed. Just don’t mention the helicopter rides.
A major donor has been magnate Lord Steinberg, who has donated £530,000, plus a loan of £250,000.
Hedge-fund owner Stanley Fink donated £103,000,
Philanthropist Dame Vivien Duffield a further £250,000.
Cameron’s Astor family supporters bring with them the historic family connections to the socialist Cliveden Set, British fascist (Sir) Oswald Mosely and nazi Third Reich official Von Ribbentrop.
Dig into the mire, and rather strangely, we find Cameron connected to a range of socialist organisations.
These include Common Purpose and the Young Foundation.
The connection between the two is ex Demos Geoff Mulgan, who operated Demos as a pro-labour think tank for the benefit of Tony Blair.
Mulgan also directs the Young Foundation and is an old Demos friend of the Chief Executive of Common Purpose, Julia Middleton. Just how is it that a right wing conservative like Cameron can mix with socialist elitest think tanks?
Shadow Chancellor George Osborne
has been working with Demos over the past 6 months on a series of seminars on the ‘post-bureaucratic age’.
How can the Tories be working with a pro-labour think tank established and supported by Blair? Collusion?
the Lib Dems are really an offshoot of the Conservatives. It can be no coincidence that their leader looks and acts like a Cameron nee Blair clone. He also has the elite high society connections. Son of a half Russian banker father, his aristocratic grandmother fled St Petersburg after the Tsar was toppled. Did they know the Milibands?
Clegg has been a political consultant and adviser to top Tory Sir Leon Brittan, 1996-9, as well as being a product of pro-EU training at the College of Europe Bruges 1991-1992 and as a European Commission official 1994-6. He now has the added benefit of his Spanish wife’s experience of working in Brussels with arch Tory Chris Patten, then a European Commissioner, and his successor Ferrero Waldner.
What a tangled web.
ANGRY FILM MAKER THROWN OUT OF BBC QUESTION TIME AUDIENCE
“Angry documentary filmmaker Bill Maloney was thrown out of the Leader’s Debate Question Time Special Audience for speaking about Institutional child abuse, the restraining techniques used in YOIs and government paedophile rings.
Just moments before Question Time went live David Dimbleby introduced the panel asking each of them what they would be doing the next day. Michael Gove (Shadow Secretary of State for Children Schools and Families) said it was his wife’s birthday and Dimbleby asked if he had bought her a present to which he replied, “I actually bought her four presents”.
Asked what the presents were Gove replied “A linen suit, a designer hand bag and two other presents that I’m not prepared to divulge”. Maloney shouted “Did we pay for them Mr Gove?” which raised a laugh from the panel and audience. Dimbleby concluded with Nigel Farage MEP of UKIP who made a sanctimonious remark to which Maloney shouted, “I don’t know why you’re so flippant, you’re guilty of stealing expenses the same as all the rest”. Dimbleby shook his finger and shouted at Maloney “If you are going to behave like this when we go on air I will have to tell you to leave.”
Maloney responded by shouting “If you want me to leave David tell me to leave. Don’t talk to me like I’m a piece of shit! You’ve got an angry electorate here and you select only five questions from 150? This is a biased audience which does not represent the lower classes.” “I’m a documentary filmmaker and I investigate Institutional child abuse; the restraining techniques that are killing lower working class kids in Young Offenders Institutions; and paedophile rings in government that are fucking our kids! You don’t like talking about the children do you David?”
Security was then called. As he was led out Maloney turned to the panel shouting, “I’m here about the children, not about the economy. I’ve got more bollocks than all of you! Shame on you!” Maloney’s wife continued by shouting “Everyone in this audience should google Hollie Greig G.R.E.I.G and realise that the government does nothing!” The security guards didn’t lay a finger on Maloney as he was led out by the Producer – in fact the security guards looked like they wanted to pat him on the back!
Maloney submitted two questions to the show which were not selected, one on the issue of crime:
1. Considering the government has given £840 billion to bail out the banks, how much have they spent on getting 3.5 million children out of poverty? Give the £3.4 billion promised to get children out of poverty which ‘breeds’ crime.
The second was on the issue of institutional child abuse:
2. Considering it cost Australian taxpayers 200 million dollars for the Popes visit there in 2008, how much is the government spending on the Pope’s visit to the UK? And should we allow the Pope, whose Vatican City has the lowest age of sexual consent in Europe of only 12 years, into the country at all?
All Maloney wanted was his questions answered, as no politicians are willing to discuss these issues.
For further information or to arrange an interview with Bill Maloney Please contact
Maria Maloney Tel: 07710 416470 or email: email@example.com”
By RICHARD S. LINDZEN
In mid-November of 2009 there appeared a file on the Internet containing thousands of emails and other documents from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Great Britain. How this file got into the public domain is still uncertain, but the emails, whose authenticity is no longer in question, provided a view into the world of climate research that was revealing and even startling.
In what has come to be known as “climategate,” one could see unambiguous evidence of the unethical suppression of information and opposing viewpoints, and even data manipulation. The Climatic Research Unit is hardly an obscure outpost; it supplies many of the authors for the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Moreover, the emails showed ample collusion with other prominent researchers in the United States and elsewhere.
One might have thought the revelations would discredit the allegedly settled science underlying currently proposed global warming policy, and, indeed, the revelations may have played some role in the failure of last December’s Copenhagen climate conference to agree on new carbon emissions limits. But with the political momentum behind policy proposals and billions in research funding at stake, the impact of the emails appears to have been small.
The general approach of the official scientific community (at least in the United States and the United Kingdom) has been to see whether people will bother to look at the files in detail (for the most part they have not), and to wait until time diffuses the initial impressions in order to reassert the original message of a climate catastrophe that must be fought with a huge measure of carbon control.
This reassertion, however, continues to be suffused by illogic, nastiness and outright dishonesty. There were, of course, the inevitable investigations of individuals like Penn State University’s Michael Mann (who manipulated data to create the famous “hockey stick” climate graph) and Phil Jones (director of the CRU). The investigations were brief, thoroughly lacking in depth, and conducted, for the most part, by individuals already publicly committed to the popular view of climate alarm. The results were whitewashes that are quite incredible given the actual data.
In addition, numerous professional societies, including the American Society of Agronomy, the American Society of Plant Biologists and the Natural Science Collections Alliance, most of which have no expertise whatever in climate, endorse essentially the following opinion: That the climate is warming, the warming is due to man’s emissions of carbon dioxide, and continued emissions will lead to catastrophe.
We may reasonably wonder why they feel compelled to endorse this view. The IPCC’s position in its Summary for Policymakers from their Fourth Assessment (2007) is weaker, and simply points out that most warming of the past 50 years or so is due to man’s emissions. It is sometimes claimed that the IPCC is 90% confident of this claim, but there is no known statistical basis for this claim—it’s purely subjective. The IPCC also claims that observations of globally averaged temperature anomaly are also consistent with computer model predictions of warming.
There are, however, some things left unmentioned about the IPCC claims. For example, the observations are consistent with models only if emissions include arbitrary amounts of reflecting aerosols particles (arising, for example, from industrial sulfates) which are used to cancel much of the warming predicted by the models. The observations themselves, without such adjustments, are consistent with there being sufficiently little warming as to not constitute a problem worth worrying very much about.
In addition, the IPCC assumed that computer models accurately included any alternative sources of warming—most notably, the natural, unforced variability associated with phenomena like El Nino, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, etc. Yet the relative absence of statistically significant warming for over a decade shows clearly that this assumption was wrong. Of course, none of this matters any longer to those replacing reason with assertions of authority.
Consider a letter of April 9 to the Financial Times by the presidents of the U.S. National Academy of Science and the Royal Society (Ralph Cicerone and Martin Rees, respectively). It acknowledges that climategate has contributed to a reduced concern among the public, as has unusually cold weather. But Messrs. Cicerone and Rees insist that nothing has happened to alter the rather extreme statement that climate is changing and it is due to human action. They then throw in a very peculiar statement (referring to warming), almost in passing: “Uncertainties in the future rate of this rise, stemming largely from the ‘feedback’ effects on water vapour and clouds, are topics of current research.”
Who would guess, from this statement, that the feedback effects are the crucial question? Without these positive feedbacks assumed by computer modelers, there would be no significant problem, and the various catastrophes that depend on numerous factors would no longer be related to anthropogenic global warming.
That is to say, the issue relevant to policy is far from settled. Nonetheless, the letter concludes: “Our academies will provide the scientific backdrop for the political and business leaders who must create effective policies to steer the world toward a low-carbon economy.” In other words, the answer is settled even if the science is not.
In France, several distinguished scientists have recently published books criticizing the alarmist focus on carbon emissions. The gist of all the books was the scientific standards for establishing the alarmist concern were low, and the language, in some instances, was intemperate. In response, a letter signed by 489 French climate scientists was addressed to “the highest French scientific bodies: the Ministry of Research, National Center for Scientific Research, and Academy of Sciences” appealing to them to defend climate science against the attacks. There appeared to be no recognition that calling on the funding agencies to take sides in a scientific argument is hardly conducive to free exchange.
The controversy was, and continues to be, covered extensively by the French press. In many respects, the French situation is better than in the U.S., insofar as the “highest scientific bodies” have not officially taken public stances—yet.
Despite all this, it does appear that the public at large is becoming increasingly aware that something other than science is going on with regard to climate change, and that the proposed policies are likely to cause severe problems for the world economy. Climategate may thus have had an effect after all.
But it is unwise to assume that those who have carved out agendas to exploit the issue will simply let go without a battle. One can only hope that the climate alarmists will lose so that we can go back to dealing with real science and real environmental problems such as assuring clean air and water. The latter should be an appropriate goal for Earth Day. (Wall Street Journal)
Mr. Lindzen is professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Journal Energy & Environment
Publisher Multi Science Publishing ISSN 0958-305X
Issue Volume 19, Number 2 / March 2008
Authors Klaus-Martin Schulte
See the full paper here
Fear of anthropogenic “global warming” can adversely affect patients’ well-being. Accordingly, the state of the scientific consensus about climate change was studied by a review of the 539 papers on “global climate change” found on the Web of Science database from January 2004 to mid-February 2007, updating research by Oreskes, who had reported that between 1993 and 2003 none of 928 scientific papers on “global climate change” had rejected the consensus that more than half of the warming of the past 50 years was likely to have been anthropogenic. In the present review, 31 papers (6% of the sample) explicitly or implicitly reject the consensus. Though Oreskes said that 75% of the papers in her former sample endorsed the consensus, fewer than half now endorse it. Only 7% do so explicitly. Only one paper refers to “catastrophic” climate change, but without offering evidence. There appears to be little evidence in the learned journals to justify the climate-change alarm that now harms patients.
“Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman states:
“IPCC studies only peer-review science. Let someone publish the data in a decent credible publication. I am sure IPCC would then accept it, otherwise we can just throw it into the dustbin.”
As usual, it’s honest volunteers who have conscientiously tested the IPCC by going through 18,500 references. And the final total? Fully 5,600, or 30% of their references are not peer reviewed.”
PopularTechnology.net have 700 peer reviewed papers supporting scepticism of man-made global warming.
From the Telegraph:
“So, the results of the first Climategate enquiry are in. And guess what? It’s a word that begins with “W” and ending with “-hitewash.”
Over at Climateaudit, the mighty Steve McIntyre is furious. Among those he holds responsible is Nigel Lawson, for having given away territory he certainly had no right to cede on the subject of that now-infamous phrase “Mike’s Nature Trick.”
Here’s how the parliamentary committee exploited Lord Lawson’s ill-judged comments.
These [ UEA]interpretations of the colloquial meaning of “trick” have been accepted by even the staunchest of critics:
Lord Lawson of Blaby: The sinister thing is not the word ‘trick’. In their [UEA’s] own evidence they say that what they mean by ‘trick’ is the best way of doing something.
Chairman: You accept that?
Lord Lawson of Blaby: I accept that.
Lord Lawson’s error under pressure before a hostile and (with the exception of dissenting Labour MP Graham Stringer) quite extraordinarily obtuse audience is understandable. But you can see why McIntyre, a man who has done more than anyone to expose the fraudulence of the AGW industry, finds it so hard to forgive.
Damn it, he has written paper after blog post after essay explaining in precise and superbly informed detail exactly why this “trick” was a bad, naughty and very wrong thing – and not, as the UEA’s appallingly disingenuous submission preferred to gloss it, a colloquial phrase meaning “the best way of doing something.”
In short, it was a very dodgy, deeply unscientific way of deleting inconvenient data. It was also, entirely typical of the lying, cheating and fraud exposed in the Climategate emails. Let us not forget, we pay for scientists like Phil Jones with our taxes. How entirely typical that a body representing the most corrupt, money-grubbing taxpayer-funded roach pit of the lot – our Houses of Parliament – should have found it so very easy to exonerate the Climategate scientists of all wrongdoing.”
Picked this up from Bishop Hill’s Blog:
Ross McKitrick’s story on how he spent two years trying to get a paper published that demonstrates the IPCC used false evidence to conceal an important problem with the surface temperature data- on which most of their conclusions rest. Definitely one worth keeping for the archives:
An old one, but worth the watch for Professor Lindzen’s comments, including the quote:
“…it’s mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other.”
“Nye was talking about freshwater perhaps shutting down the gulf stream. But that isn’t what physical oceanographers think. First of all, we’ve measured the heat transport from the tropics to high latitudes- it’s almost all in the atmosphere. The Gulf Stream is mostly driven by wind. To shut it down you’d have to shut down the rotation of the earth, or shut off the wind. There’s alot of confusion in this and at the heart of it we are talking about a few tenths of a degree change of temperature, none of it in the last 8 years by the way. If we had warming it should be accompanied by less storminess . But because the temperature itself is so unspectacular we’ve developed all sorts of fear prospect scenarios of flooding, plague, increased storminess when the physics says we should see less; I think it’s mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other”