- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Wednesday, April 07, 2010

All silent on the climategate front


Where is Whaleoil? Where is KiwiBlogh? Where is Not PC? No Minister? Cactus Kate and to a much, much, much lesser impact in terms of influence - Dr Ian over at Dr Mac. Where are all our climate deniers who have spent so much of this year screaming the climategate emails would show forever that global warming is a hoax and that man made pollution has nothing to do with climate change.

WHERE ARE THOSE WHO DESERVE NOTHING BUT CONTEMPT FOR MOUTHING BIG OIL SPONSORED BULLSHIT TO STOP ANY ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRESS?

They have gone oddly quiet haven't they? I just don't understand folks, surely they would have something to say about Professor Jones and CRU being exonerated by a parliamentary inquiry...

Jones and CRU exonerated by parliamentary inquiry
The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the Committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community but that those practices need to change.

On the much cited phrases in the leaked e-mails—”trick” and “hiding the decline”—the Committee considers that they were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead.

Insofar as the Committee was able to consider accusations of dishonesty against CRU, the Committee considers that there is no case to answer.


Perhaps Whaleoil, Kiwiblogh, Cathy Odgers, No Minister, Un PC and to a much lesser degree in terms of influence, Mac Dr are waiting for the audit by the Scientific Appraisal Panel before they admit that they have been wrong, admit they have been mouthing big oil spin and admit that man made pollution is changing the climate and endangers us all.

Man made pollution is warming the planet dangerously towards a tipping point which could crash our collective civilization, of that there is zero doubt, yet a report put out by Greenpeace last week shows how one of the largest secret corporations in America, Koch Industries, is spending tens of millions on inaccurate and misleading information regarding climate change.

Koch Industries funded 20 organizations central to the global media echo chamber that was Climategate.

In 2007, Koch Industries funded an astrophysicist to write an article about polar bears which, masquerading as a piece of peer-reviewed literature, attempted to refute the threat to the species due to climate change.

Koch Industries also funded a Danish think tank which produced a “dubious study about the Danish wind industry”, rejected by the Danish environment minister, which was then used to challenge President Obama’s support of wind power while funding groups which supported a “widely debunked study” which claimed that Spain’s support of renewable energy had lost the country jobs.

Oh and Koch Industries have also paid out huge amounts to other hard right climate denial think tanks like the Mercatus Center, Americans For Prosperity, The Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute.

Let's add this to what we already know about big oil sponsored climate denial...

Frank Luntz Memorandum to the Bush White House, 2002, on how to shut down the global warming debate?

Winning the Global Warming Debate – An Overview

1: The scientific debate remains open: Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.

Right, so in the same way the Tobacco companies attacked consensus of a link between smoking and cancer, big oil and big polluters are using similar smear tactics to question the science behind the evidence that man made pollution is causing the climate to rapidly change.

And let’s not forget who is backing much of this smear campaign…

Climate Change Skeptics
The world’s largest-ever gathering of global warming skeptics will assemble Sunday in New York City to confront the issue, “Global warming: Was it ever really a crisis?” About 800 scientists, economists, legislators, policy activists, and media representatives are expected to register at the second International Conference on Climate Change, opening Sunday, March 8 and concluding Tuesday, March 10 at the New York Marriott Marquis Hotel.

Hmmm, and I wonder who is organizing this climate change sKeptics picnic in wunderland? The Heartland Institute? Ummmm, aren’t they the very same Heartland Institute who until 2006 were receiving money from Exxon Mobile and who also is behind the Tobacco Industries ludicrous position that Tobacco isn’t scientifically proven to cause cancer and as such there shouldn’t be taxes on cigarettes?

Shouldn’t we at least be honest that much of the climate sKeptic agenda is actually funded by big oil?

Between 1998 and 2005: ExxonMobil Grants $16 Million to Global Warming Skeptic Organizations
ExxonMobil disperses roughly $16 million to organizations that are challenging the scientific consensus view that greenhouse gases are causing global warming. For many of the organizations, ExxonMobil is their single largest corporate donor, often providing more than 10 percent of their annual budgets. A study by the Union of Concerned Scientists will find that “[v]irtually all of them publish and publicize the work of a nearly identical group of spokespeople, including scientists who misrepresent peer-reviewed climate findings and confuse the public’s understanding of global warming. Most of these organizations also include these same individuals as board members or scientific advisers.” After the Bush administration withdraws from the Kyoto Protocol, the oil company steps up its support for these organizations. Some of the ExxonMobil-funded groups tell the New York Times that the increase is a response to the rising level of public interest in the issue. “Firefighters’ budgets go up when fires go up,” explains Fred L. Smith, head of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Explaining ExxonMobil’s support for these organizations, company spokesman Tom Cirigliano says: “We want to support organizations that are trying to broaden the debate on an issue that is so important to all of us. There is this whole issue that no one should question the science of global climate change. That is ludicrous. That’s the kind of dark-ages thinking that gets you in a lot of trouble.”

The following is a list of some of the organizations funded by ExxonMobil:
American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
- AEI receives $1,625,000 from ExxonMobil between and 1998 and 2005. During this period, it plays host to a number of climate contrarians.
American Legislative Exchange Council - In 2005, ExxonMobil grants $241,500 to this organization. Its website features a non-peer-reviewed paper by climate contrarian Patrick Michaels.
Center for Science and Public Policy - Started at the beginning of 2003, this one-man operation receives $232,000 from ExxonMobil. The organization helps bring scientists to Capitol Hill to testify on global warming and the health effects of mercury.
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow - Between 2004 and 2005, this organization receives $215,000 from ExxonMobil. Its advisory panel includes Sallie Baliunas, Robert Balling, Roger Bate, Sherwood Idso, Patrick Michaels, and Frederick Seitz, all of whom are affiliated with other ExxonMobil-funded organizations.
Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) - Founded in 1984 to fight government regulation on business, CEI started receiving large grants from ExxonMobil after Myron Ebell moved there from Frontiers of Freedom in 1999. CEI, along with another ExxonMobil-supported enterprise, the Cooler Heads Coalition, runs the website GlobalWarming.Org, which is part of an effort to “dispel the myths of global warming by exposing flawed economic, scientific, and risk analysis.” Between 2000 and 2003, the CEI receives $1,380,000, or 16 percent of the total funds donated by Exxon during that period.
Frontiers of Freedom - The organization receives $230,000 from Exxon in 2002 and $40,000 in 2001. It has an annual budge of about $700,000.
George C. Marshall Institute - The institute is known primarily for its work advocating a “Star Wars” missile defense program. Between 1998 and 2005, Exxon-Mobil grants $630,000 to the Marshall Institute primarily to underwrite the institute’s climate change effort. William O’Keefe, the organization’s CEO, once worked as the executive vice president and chief operating officer of the American Petroleum Institute. He has also served on the board of directors of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, another global warming skeptic organization, and is chairman emeritus of the Global Climate Coalition.
Heartland Institute - In 2005, this organization receives $119,000 from ExxonMobil. Its website offers articles by the same scientists promoted by other ExxonMobil-funded global warming skeptic organizations.
Tech Central Station - TCS is a web-based organization that provides news, commentary, and analysis focusing on the societal tensions and strains that are concomitant with historical change. TCS proclaims itself as a strong believer of the “material power of free markets, open societies, and individual human ingenuity to raise living standards and improve lives.” Until 2006, the website is operated by a public relations firm called the DCI Group, which is a registered ExxonMobil lobbying firm. In 2003 TCS receives $95,000 from ExxonMobil to be used for “climate change support.” TCS contributors on the global warming issue include the same group of people that is promoted by several of the other ExxonMobil-funded global warming skeptic organizations. In 2006, TCS will pay the public relations firm Medialink Worldwide to produce a video news release that challenges the view that global warming has increased the intensity of hurricanes. The piece is later shown on a Mississippi television station and presented as a regular news report.

I personally love the story about the Public Interest Watch from 2002 – this was a front group funded by Exxon-Mobile which attacked Greenpeace by suggesting that Greenpeace were avoiding tax – amazingly Greenpeace was audited because of this one claim by an Exxon-Mobil front group.

So when climate deniers attack the science linking climate change to man made pollution in the exact same way the tobacco industry attacked the science linking cancer to smoking, perhaps we should consider that the majority of this spin is funded by corporates who would suffer most from any anti pollution tax.

Sadly for thinking citizens, this big oil sponsored lie that man made pollution is not impacting the environment has already been seized upon by big business to resist change...

Heat increases on Govt to delay start of carbon trading
The Government is under increasing pressure from business, farmers and coalition partner Act to delay or at least soften the impact of the emissions trading scheme (ETS) ahead of its introduction in July this year. Yesterday Business New Zealand chief executive Phil O'Reilly confirmed his organisation was one of a number of signatories to a letter from business groups to the Government in March asking it to delay or alter the entry onJuly 1 of key parts of the scheme. The Herald understands other signatories included the NZ Chambers of Commerce, the Road Transport Association, the Petroleum Exploration and Production Association, the Major Electricity Users Group and the Meat Industry Association.

With the planet choking on its own filth, perhaps someone could tell our Minister of Tourism that a clean green brand is more valuable than ever before.

Mining schedule 4 conservation land, lying about the impact of mining with a flawed Eden Park postcard analogy and continuing to lie about the mineral valuation with inflated mining lobbyist figures may in fact become the worst PR disaster since Telecom XT.

National are in a hole and they just keep digging.

18 Comments:

At 7/4/10 12:15 pm, Anonymous Dr Truth said...

The debate is over. THERE IS NO MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

You have been conned.

 
At 7/4/10 1:35 pm, Anonymous Pascal's bookie said...

They've gone vewy qwiet indeed Bomber.

Was a time when if you posted something on AGW at a quater past nine of a morning, anon trolls would be lining up with their smelly links to third rate bloggers and Torygraph editorials.

Good times, good times.

 
At 7/4/10 2:23 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If they are third rate bloggers what does that make this piece of shit bogsite.
Or perhaps they have been scared off by the Greenpeace threat.
http://www.infowars.com:80/greenpeace-to-global-warming-skeptics-we-know-where-you-live/

 
At 7/4/10 2:48 pm, Blogger Bomber said...

Dr Truth - you are wrong, very wrong.

Anon 1:35pm - Yes they are very quiet aren't they?

Anon 2:23pm - I'm not suggesting they are 3rd rate bloggers, I'm suggesting they are wrong. As for this piece of shit blogsite, you can chck the ratings down the right hand side of the site, Tumeke is ranked 12th. Info wars has some interesting bits and bobs, but I think Alex has missed climate change as an issue and I don't agree with his position at all.

 
At 7/4/10 3:21 pm, Blogger Bomber said...

Bomber how can I be wrong?

Dr Truth you are a climate denier, so there are many, many, many, many, many, many, many reasons you could be wrong, but let's just pick one shall we?

Your link is dated Feb 14th, mine is dated 31st March and mine just happens to be the Science and Technology Committee Announcement (not a DailyMail quote you'll note Dr Truth) and my link says ... The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones's refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the Committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community but that those practices need to change.

On the much cited phrases in the leaked e-mails—"trick" and "hiding the decline"—the Committee considers that they were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead.

Insofar as the Committee was able to consider accusations of dishonesty against CRU, the Committee considers that there is no case to answer.


It is YOU Dr Truth who is running out of credibility, which is okay, you never put an identifiable name to your posts so you can just quietly walk away from ever being a climate denier who mouthed big oil spin, you'll be fine but the planet isn't doing so well thanks to your attempts to muddy the climate change debate.

 
At 7/4/10 4:52 pm, Blogger Whaleoil said...

http://whaleoil.gotcha.co.nz/2010/04/07/bombers-challenge/

There you go Bomber. If you can use the Guardian as a reputable piece of repeating then i feel quite happy using the links I have provided.

Oh and on the peer-reviewed comment, Two words....Himalayan Glaciers.

 
At 7/4/10 4:58 pm, Anonymous Dr Truth said...

Given that there has been no warming since 1995 how can you argue the theory to be true? I would put my name, but given the vile hate against those of us who speak out against the orthodoxy, one cant be too careful.

 
At 7/4/10 6:20 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just caused some anthropogenic warming in my pants .. parp.

 
At 7/4/10 6:46 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"On the accusations relating to Professor Jones's refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the Committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community but that those practices need to change."

Have you actually thought about the ramifications of this? By not sharing data then scientists cannot replicate the results to check their accuracy.

What's happening here is a coverup of a cover-up aided and abeted by useful fools like you Bomber.

If you think it's acceptable to deny other scientists valuable data to corroboate their findings then go ahead but it's just a leftard version of 'I think my argument is so powerful I don't need to explain/prove/verifiy' and we'' treat it with the disdain it deserves.

FAIL

 
At 7/4/10 7:17 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...the Committee considers that there is no case to answer" is because the STC inves­ti­ga­tion into cli­mate­gate is far­ci­cal on its face. The Com­mit­tee itself admits that it’s report is insuf­fi­cient and does not cover all the issues. Phil Willis, the committee’s chair­man, noted that it had to pro­duce some­thing quickly before the British gen­eral elec­tion, and a pos­si­ble change of gov­ern­ment, in May.“Clearly we would have liked to spend more time on this,” Willis said, adding “We had to get some­thing out before we were sent pack­ing.” Though the Com­mit­tee con­demned the CRU for with­hold­ing infor­ma­tion requested by out­siders under Britain’s free­dom of infor­ma­tion laws, it failed to deter­mine whether Pro­fes­sor Jones had actively deleted infor­ma­tion to pre­vent requests to pub­lish it, as indi­cated by requests made by Jones in emails to his col­leagues.
“The cul­ture of non-disclosure at CRU and instances where infor­ma­tion may have been deleted to avoid dis­clo­sure, par­tic­u­larly to cli­mate change scep­tics, we felt was rep­re­hen­si­ble,” Willis told a news con­fer­ence. How­ever, the report does not indict Jones on these charges, per­haps because, as revealed by one of the MP on the com­mit­tee in com­ments to The Times of Lon­don, all mem­bers had agreed not to ques­tion Pro­fes­sor Jones too closely because of his “frag­ile con­di­tion” – now that’s what we call get­ting to the bot­tom of the mat­ter. Phil Willis also said that the fur­ther two pend­ing inquiries into the e-mail scan­dal would pro­vide a more in depth review. How­ever one can hardly expect the so called “inde­pen­dent” inves­ti­ga­tion led by Sir Muir Rus­sell to be in any form impar­tial, given that Rus­sell him­self vehe­mently sup­ports the notion of anthro­pogenic global warm­ing and has con­structed a panel of “experts” that share the same views. Those views clearly con­tra­dict the found­ing prin­ci­ple of the inquiry – to appoint experts who do not have a “pre­de­ter­mined view on cli­mate change and cli­mate sci­ence”. Thus, any notion that this inves­ti­ga­tion might shake the foun­da­tions of the per­ceived “con­sen­sus” on cli­mate sci­ence, by being any­thing other than favourable to Phil Jones and the CRU, is highly unlikely.
Once again it will be left to the alter­na­tive media and the blogs to expose these white­wash reports for what they are, given that the vast major­ity of the cor­po­rate main­stream media will undoubt­edly run with head­lines such as “Inves­ti­ga­tion Clears Cli­mate Sci­en­tists” and “Warm­ing Sci­ence Vin­di­cated”, head­lines that will be repeated ad infini­tum by warmists, car­bon trad­ing scam artists and eco-fascists everywhere.

 
At 7/4/10 8:55 pm, Anonymous Tim said...

"L.O.L"....love it! All the anononymphs jostling for their positions whilst all the bleeding obvious changes in climate (increases in natural disasters, drought, flood - and what insurance companies refer to as "tempest") look them in the face.

Now please people! let's get down to some serious business!. Let's please try and start the next gold rush....there's gold and silver in them there Coromandel hills I hear. Let's dig it all up! Roll the dice! I at least want a chance that some of my asshole aquaintances who live beyond their means and don't really give a shit beyond their alarm-ridden front gates might live to tell their tale. Jeez.....they deserve some consideration don't they? Next thing ya know they'll be wanting to move to the Gold Coast! In reality, I know they're next up for the mortgagee sale and will expect my deepest sympathy. Poor people aye?
I just witnessed another such pathetic attempt (right here in the suburb of Mt Vic. - a gate that even the least desperate of opportunist criminal looking for an easy earn could circumvent).

.......as if!

 
At 7/4/10 11:06 pm, Blogger Cactus Kate said...

I take a Rick Giles styled approach.

Climate change/global warming is too boring to talk about.

In the same way I don't harp on daily about my disbelief in religion, neither do I about a similar disbelief in global warming and climate change.

 
At 7/4/10 11:56 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Big Oil isn’t on the side of the sceptics. Big Oil is on the side of the warmists in this debate.

http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/climate-change-and-big-oil/

And Al Gores family have Oil interests. (Stock holdings in Occidental Petroleum).

This scam is all about money (at the average Joe's expense) not saving the planet. And big oil understandably do not want to miss out.

 
At 8/4/10 2:32 am, Anonymous Mike said...

From one of the anonymous deniers on the temperature record:

"By not sharing data then scientists cannot replicate the results to check their accuracy."

An interesting comment to be sure, considering that the NCDC, NASA, a group in Japan, a group in Russia and even a few bloggers with a bit of spare time, have all replicated the instrumental temperature record from the overwhelming amount of publicly available data and code out there.

Or as the committee put it:

51. Even if the data that CRU used were not publicly available—which they mostly are—or the methods not published—which they have been—its published results would still be credible: the results from CRU agree with those drawn from other international data sets; in other words, the analyses have been repeated and the conclusions have
been verified.


Would it really be to much to ask for the deniers to actually read the report and learn some science instead of posting dribble?

 
At 8/4/10 7:46 am, Anonymous AAMC said...

Is there an argument for precaution in all of this? Seems Dr Truth, Whaleoil and their Anon supporters are predominantly keen on a dick measuring contest and my children have to live on this planets once you guys have departed it. My sense is that you would be happy to leave them a steaming pile of your effluent. One thing I'm very sure of is that we have a finite planet and our current anthropocentric habits will leave a very sad legacy, the Empire that destroyed the planet- well done! Do you also refute species die out? Deforestation? Whatever the science ends up proving in regard to Climate Change, humanity evolving from the combustion engine and from our veracious greed can surely only be of benefit to all - there is even economic opportunity in it - and if the science ends up stacking up, in spite of the big interests that lie on either side of this debate we may have averted our most selfish and destructive moment.If it doesn't we'll have a few more intact forests and some more efficient technology. But that won't happen will it, because you're right, there's a lot of money at stake, and quarterly profits and the free market and the boat and the batch and the big TV are all far too important, life wouldn't be the same without all of that. Except for my children, it might just be different for them,because you guys were too busy measuring dicks and pretending the world was flat.

 
At 8/4/10 12:54 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"An interesting comment to be sure, considering that the NCDC, NASA, a group in Japan, a group in Russia and even a few bloggers with a bit of spare time, have all replicated the instrumental temperature record from the overwhelming amount of publicly available data and code out there."

You wouldn't mind putting links ups this these groups then?

 
At 8/4/10 8:15 pm, Anonymous Mike said...

Here's a few links to start with

NASA
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
-you can find documentation, their code and links to the data on the site

NCDC
http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/2009/articles/climate-change-global-temperature

The bloggers
- this post (on a skeptic blog interestingly) summaries the results of several bloggers
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/comparing-global-land-temperature-reconstructions/

Overall the agreement is very good, even when you add in the "quick and dirty" blogger versions. This is how we know the HadCru data showing warming is robust, it's been independently verified many times

 
At 9/4/10 12:48 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting take AAMC "you guys were too busy pretending the world was flat" Seems that you get that wrong as well. History shows that it was sci­ence and scientists who declared the earth was flat. People like Aristotle didn’t believe that theory (in their time they were prob­a­bly known as FLAT EARTH DENIERS)and rubbished for their view. The prob­lem was for the sci­ence is set­tled brigade is that the Earth wasn’t flat and the so-called deniers were eventually proved correct.

 

Post a comment

<< Home