Richard Black has filed his take on the Parliamentary “investigation” into the Climategate emails. Naturally, he thinks it’s a wonderful outcome showing the integrity of the climate change community. As a sop, he mentions a couple of important sceptics and that they are not happy with the “whitewash” conclusion. But there’s no doubt who’s side he’s on:
in parts of the opinion spectrum, anything that did not result in mass resignations and a conclusion that man-made climate change is a myth and a fraud would be so regarded.
This can only be construed as a contemptuous dismissal of those whom he sees are against him. The men he quotes, Steve McIntyre and Benny Peiser, actually want something very different from what Mr Black claims. They are simply seeking an honest and open debate about the science involved and a proper re-appraisal of the data that has been twisted by those at East Anglia and elsewhere to support political theories. And that is what MPs are so disgracefully busting a gut to block.
If you question me, take a look at this astonishing story of how important research doubting the UEA temperature record, by Steve McIntyre’s colleague Ross McKitrick, was kept out of peer-reviewed journals by the academic climate change community. Those will be the so-called scientists that the House of Commons committee so cravenly backed.
and at Bishop Hill today
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/4/1/der-spiegel.html
Also see the work being done by EM Smith
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/
and Roy Spencer
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/03/direct-evidence-that-most-u-s-warming-since-1973-could-be-spurious/
then look me in the eye and tell me that Jones and the rest are honest hard working scientists.
The MP’s whitewash and the BBC’s fawning are disgraceful and should be subject to capital punishment for treason.
So the CRU has the backing of the government, MPs and a broadcaster which the government controls both financially and by appointing each and every member of its controlling trust.
Supporters like that tell me all I need to know about the CRU. It’s part of a scam to get more money out of us.
From the Der Spiegel article linked to by the Bishop Hill blog, more evience that the IPCC reports, to put it mildly, lack scientific rigour.
The all-clear signal on the hurricane front is another setback for the IPCC. In keeping with lead author Kevin Trenberth’s predictions, the IPCC report warned that there would be more hurricanes in a greenhouse climate. One of the graphs in the IPCC report is particularly mysterious. Without specifying a source, the graph suggestively illustrates how damage caused by extreme weather increases with rising average temperatures.
When hurricane expert Roger Pielke, Jr. of the University of Colorado at Boulder saw the graph, he was appalled. “I would like to discover this sort of relationship myself,” he says, “but it simply isn’t supported by the facts at the moment.”
Pielke tried to find out where the graph had come from. He traced it to the chief scientist at a London firm that performs risk calculations for major insurance companies. The insurance scientist claims that the graph was never meant for publication. How the phantom graph found its way into the IPCC report is still a mystery.
Any chance Black or Harrabin will question Pachauri about how the graph got into the report? Slim to no chance is my guess.
A question. How many lemmings running in the opposite direction do the mass have to see before they start to wonder if the crowd is going in the right direction.
With Climategate ( a big thank you to the whistle blower) those running in the other direction suddenly seem a lot more visible and the former certainty seems to be waning daily. The terms AGW/MMGW are rarely used by alarmists now ,only the catch all “climate change” which is undeniable, but also includes, of course ,cooling!
Mr. Black has near zero credibility as anything, especially as an objective, much less topic-qualified reporter.
Possibly as a consequence, if perhaps not solely his ‘fault’, his blogs have near zero value.
Every so often he prints something so ridiculous it has to be factually or logically challenged lest inertia allow tripe to become fact, but any worthwhile thread posts are usually totally swallowed by the two tribes that seem to live there 24/7, and exist only to try and knock spots off each other.
I sometimes post to challenge his claims, but doubt if anyone reads them outside the cock pit. I certainly avoid the screeds of guff there, so why would anyone else with a life wade through?
That such as he is employed at all, and this level of reporting still encouraged by legions of £200k rewards champions, shows just how far the BBC has sunk.
And that science in general, and the critical, topical issue of ‘environment’ especially, is left by a £3.5B national broadcast entity in the care of a handful of unqualified, compromised bunch like Black, Harrabin, Shuckman, etc is to their eternal shame.
Oh Black is the twat whose BBC “blog” is “protected” by the BBC Censors who diligently remove any ant-Black mutterings.
Whilst allowing a half dozen warm mongering “black” ballers to post under the same name, answering semi-critical posts with bewildering speed.
Sometime “one” warm monger will “sneeringly” respond to three posts within a minute!
For hours on end.
NASA’s climate figures also turn out to be highly suspect, even manipulated. Every time a Warmist claims that the CRU scandal is nothing because there are other independent sources of data that show the same thing, I remember that those other sources are either bogus themselves, or incorporate the CRU’s own bogus data.
So the irrefutable evidence these MPs are talking about just doesn’t exist.
All MPs bar Mr Lilley voted for the most expensive Bill ever to be passed by parliament (The Climete Change Bill). Can any of them now do anything else but back CRU and all the alarmists?
AGW is something that cannot be argued against by science, because science does not come into it. AGW is a political movement and can only be defeated politically.
Black and his collegues at the BBC have also taken on the dogma and they too will never change – the only answer is to get rid of the BBC completely as it is now just a propaganda arm of any totalitarian ideology.
No opposition to the political AGW theory will come from the conservatives:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1261389/SamCams-father-exploits-Labours-green-subsidy-wind-farm-nets-3-5m-year.html
Also note that there was only one scientist on the panel of the parliamentary inquiry into “climategate”, Graham Stringer MP (Labour). He seems to have attcked the “science” of CRU but seeing as this is political his concerns seemed to have been blocked by 3 other MPs Tim Boswell (Conservative), Evan Harris (LibDem) and Brian Iddon (Labour).
http://climateaudit.org/2010/03/30/stringers-dissents-a-split-decision/
The flawed AGW theory will be very expensive for the majority of the population and it also hands more powers to unelected international bureaucrats to interfere with our everyday lives.
For these reasons I cannot and will not vote for anyone who takes power away from the people and gives it to civil servants.
John,
Im completely and utterly against Mann Made Global Warming ™, but come on…lets be honest here. If you can make an easy buck out of this scam, as SamCam ™ dad did, then why not?? 😀
Mailman
Mailman – maybe. But I live in the middle of one of these “wind-farm” monstrosities and believe me they are not environmentaly friendly They have completly blighted the landscape. Making vast amounts of money to totally destroy the countryside is not what conservatism means to me.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100031793/the-disgusting-toffs-who-are-destroying-britain/
This is what happens when you attend Harrabins school of environmentalism.
Slightly off-topic but refreshing none the less if anyone would like to see some utterly clueless Greenpeace fanatic having her global warming beliefs decimated and shattered within ten minutes flat by Lord Monckton, then just watch this clip:-
T’other day on “today” Naughtie chatted with Glasgow based BBC reporter Blain about the state of the piste in the Highlands. Still good skiing it seems, but Blain brings up climate change. So it seems that NOT having winters like in the old days is evidence of CC AND having winters like in the old days is also evidence of CC.
A few days before the Government whitewash was announced I had received an email from the Governments petition website (bugger knows the name) saying that the petition to get one of those all seeing, all rock turning enquiries in to CRU and climate science would be ignored because the science was already settled….and they based this on several independent data sets all coming up with the same conclusion. That Mann is the sole cause of global warming ™.
Funny that, I thought pretty much all the data sets out there in use today come from the one original temperature dataset, which CRU fed in to?
Mailman
Integrity and the BBC do not go and in hand – they are strangers to each other.
“A decade ago, I would have been struggling to write this on a computer with perhaps a couple of gigabytes’ space on the hard drive over a 56k modem connection.”
Really Richard? You could have written it pretty easily in 1983 on an 8-bit Commodore 64 with 64K of memory, hooked up to Prestel. 10 years ago, computers weren’t much less able to run word processors than they are now. You are so full of bullshit.
“The one I’m using now has more than 400G of memory”
No it doesn’t mate. Try maybe a hundredth of that. Your complete and utter arse-faced ignorance when it comes to basic computing leads me to speculate that you’re not someone who should be writing about science for a national broadcaster. Who the hell did you blow to get a job at the Beeb. Oh wait I forgot, shit-for-brains is pretty much the only requirement the Beeb has to hire someone.
Bring back CPM and WordStar !