The evidence that climate change is not occurring, according to the sceptics, rests on three stolen emails.

I wonder what damning evidence the 10,000 other emails stolen shows.

I think this is pretty thin evidence of a climate conspiracy, there is a good account of the whole episode on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident but the sceptics argue that this is part of the conspiracy, wiki is totally transparent and there is a discussion of those who disagree with the entry here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident but this in turn will be dismissed as part of the conspiracy. And so on.

Conspiracies do exist but so does the principle of Occam's razor

I have not had much in the way of intelligent response to my article on sceptics. I think its fair to say that it is impossible to construct complete models for climate and that negative feedback mechanisms may be more important than positive. Even so given the risks of climate change and the horrifying problem of acidifying oceans, this is not an argument for inaction. I would also agree that carbon trading is a con and Al Gore is no guide to realistic action.

Climate sceptics are unwilling, though, to state bluntly that CO2 levels don't influence the climate and are not prepared to examine their own approach.

Its very much a matter of searching through an ocean of evidence that suggests climate change is occuring for a little fish that can be misnamed as fraudulent.

I suspect oil addiction is the source of this madness, oil is polluting and running out, although I guess these people will be on to say that it is pure and grows at the bottom of caves.

If you think there is anything in the sceptics case, look at my article and look at their responses and then decide.

I guess they will be on in a minute calling me a fascist.



kaihsu said…
(1) I never borrowed a kettle from you, (2) I returned it to you unbroken, (3) the kettle was already broken when I got it from you.

(1) Global warming is not happening, (2) the climate always changes, (3) it is too late/expensive to do anything about it.

With many thanks to dear Slavoj Žižek. http://www.versobooks.com/books/tuvwxyz/xyz-titles/zizek_iraq.shtml
Anonymous said…
(1) My kettle is melting, (2) You must take my word for it, (3) It will cost you to repair my kettle.

(1) I say there is Global Warming, (2) You must not ask for proof, (3) I will make a lot of money from it.
Derek Wall said…
Well anoymous thats told us! So you don't think global warming is occuring, what do you say to the sceptics who say it is happening but caused by sunspots?
tim said…
Reminds me of a book I read about far right wing paramilitary groups in the United States. The author interviewed a member of some racist nationalist militia and the guy told him that the US government, with the UN was building underground prison camps to throw white Christian patriots in when the New World Order and the Illuminati declared Martial Law and took over the country and that he had found out where one of these camps was. So the author asked him to take him to it and show him. When they got there, they discovered a part of an old abandoned sewer system. Well, to the militia conspriracist, the fact that it was not an underground prison camp afterall was simply more proof that the NWO was creating a web of misdirection and deception to divert attention from where the real camps were. Its this fascinating phenomenon where disproving the conspiracy theory doesnt cause the person to rethink their belief but actually causes them to believe even more faithfully in an even deeper conspiracy.
Derek Wall said…
what is quite fun, is they have different contradictory conspiracy stories, love to see the different climate sceptics arguing with each other,

Tim if you have a moment I would love it if you repost my sceptics as alcoholics article, originally from the Marxist newspaper Morning Star!

Still we can agree with them about Al Gore!
Anonymous said…
Funny how you source Wikipedia for Climategate. You haven’t heard of William Connelly, Michael Mann’s buddy who was fired as an administrator for Wikipedia in October for fraudulent Pro AGW edits. Somehow that hasn’t stopped him. He’s back at work as the links you list were edited by him as late as today. He has since moved on to erasing the Medieval Warm Period. Would you consider him to be affiliated with neo-fascism


In fact, as far as I can tell, he holds the record for Wiki edits, 39,300 and counting.


This makes the basis for your article bogus.

kaihsu said…
Oh come on, man.

If you don’t get the facts, at least try to get the joke.
Derek Wall said…
hey its a conspiracy, you lot have the whole of Fox TV, I do see much input from critics there except for the better episodes of the simpsons.

So Wiki is control by an elite, yeah, yeah and conservapedia gives a more neutral view.

You are exact in your use of 'neo-fascism' as you are as precise in your knowledge of climate.
Anonymous said…
CRU/MET/NASA/NOAA/NCDC use ground/sea based thermometer data which produces those colorful (scary) graphs you see on their websites. But the data used to produce them are susceptible to scientists' manipulation as well as simple collection errors, (i.e. placement, under or over reporting stations, environment changes etc.) or even downright fraud, (as we’ve found through climategate). Thermometer temperature history is so unreliable that it is re-written on a monthly basis, requiring constant re-entry to produce accurate graphs. Given these factors, I wouldn’t consider the global thermometer record to have better than ½ +/- degree C accuracy.

Fortunately, we have Satellite data which, at great expense, began in December 1978, (ironically to better investigate possible global cooling). Dr John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville posts the data, but since he doesn’t trumpet gloom and doom scare tactics, the media mostly ignores him. High resolution satellite data is regularly weather balloon checked to be within 3 one hundredths (3/100) of a degree C accuracy.

When you linear plot (f(x) = a*x+b, where a and b are constants. Calculated so the sum of squares (SSQ) S(yi-f(xi))^2), the temperature from January 1998 to November 2009 the thermometer record shows a WARMING TREND.

When you plot, (same as above), the satellite data, the record shows a COOLING TREND, with a DIFFERENCE from the thermometer record ranging from .33-.41 C per decade. If Co2 is at all time highs and rising, why have temperatures trended down?

This “more than a decade” cooling trend is eluded to in the EMAIL Oct. 12, 2009. From Kevin Trenberth to Michael Mann and colleagues. "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't,"…. Here, Trenberth is expressing concern that none of their (21+) models had, or could, predict this.

These tests can be reproduced by ANYONE who has the datasets and a graphing program. Armed with these facts gives you the ability to form a more intelligent opinion.
Derek Wall said…
what do you say to sceptics who say temperatures are increasing?

Any way thanks for the information which is interesting, I am more open to information than being shouted at.

merry xmass!
Anonymous said…

I don't have cable, I don't watch TV, FOX included. It's ALL too politicized to watch.

And I am not a scientist either..
I base my belief on only fact.
Anonymous said…

There is not much you can say, most are too far gone, but I cross my fingers that the true facts come out before we read about it in history books.
Anonymous said…
I just noticed I posted an incomplete link to Connelley. Here is the correct link. Sorry the number of posts I've been doing.


Merry X-mass to you to!
Derek Wall said…

Do look at the work of Elinor Ostrom and Roberto Perez, they have so good ideas for running more environmentally friendly economies and keep off the oil my friend.
Anonymous said…

I have no problem with conservation, clean air, water. Oil is a limited resource and does polute. I don't have a problem with "Small footprint". But, if you are talking "Small CARBON(Co2) footprint, that is where I draw the line. One day, environmentalists will realize that they have been mislead, and they won't be very happy about it.
T. B. said…
The thing about the phrase "climate skeptics" is that it credits all of these people with honesty. In truth, they're deniers, but not necessarily skeptics.

There are people who are psychopathic enough to (a) believe that climate change is killing and otherwise harming people, AND (b) take money to pretend that climate change isn't a problem.
Anonymous said…
It's funny how sheeple get all their information from the tel-lie-vision. Don't you know that the carbon tax they want is to set up the nwo legtally. The power to tax is what gives any government its power. But oops, why research something unless Rupert Murdock told you to on tv.Everyone supporting this green bull are either one world order lackeys or those who are getting some form of compensation from the same. Why are all the planets in the solar system heating up? hmmm, must be a lot of industry on the other planets too.why do fools listen to people who will make billions of dollars from green. We deserve everything that's coming to us and every iota of whats happening has been phrophised. see you at the FEMA. concentration camps suckers

Popular posts from this blog

Fidel Castro Obituary – by Hugo Blanco

HOW IS POLITICS DONE IN PERU? Protest against neoliberalism and ecocide in Peru.

Elinor Ostrom's Rules for Radicals