A call to clean up our science and Politics

Recently, it has become apparent through the release of approximately 5000 emails from scientists and various activists and others that even more shady behavior has been going along in climate science.  The last piece of the puzzle in this regard of course is the political connection, but the obvious connection between science and activists is very apparent and it occurs among all of the famous climate scientists and they are influenced by and influence activists with their techniques of working together for the “cause” (As they call it.)

Several emails in particular highlight this rather unhealthy relationship.  Science always gets ideas wherever it can receive them, but it should never be influenced by this and conversely balanced activism should never have scientists telling them “which scientists they can trust.”

But for now just the emails I will discuss: (2890 first) http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=2840

………CRU’s position (we don’t take positions!), well my position is simply that we can’t use hurricane changes as a detection variable, but precautionary principle clearly suggests (given some theoretical grounds for danger) we should reckon our systems are going to have to cope with more and worse in the future.
Cheers,
Mike

The previous discussion involves hurricanes and a discussion between Mike Hulme (scientist) with WWF who at this time wanted to broadcast how global warming was causing hurricane Floyd.  Just yet another unhealthy relationship there and some very interesting things said by a so-called scientist in that email.

Other emails that show this connection include: 5233 which shows a discussion of how the WWF can use more radical (or sober as they call it) portraits of the GCM results by not making the results statistically significant.  The scientist again in this case is M. Hulme who has no problems with this omission of facts at all.  4330 is another interesting email in this regard which once again shows outside contact between WWF, scientists and in this case the email itself shows us plenty at the end of it: (Email is to Mike Hulme).

 

……….I particularly like one of his statements which went something like ‘It would be very presumptious of us if we thought we could exactly model something as complex as the natural environment…..’ a good way of describing the complexity we face.
I will make fresh contact with WWF this week to see if they have any interest in trialling the disc and creating  teacher guidance notes on potential uses for the disc.
Regards
Jane

Jane Measures BP Britannic House

Now stopping there for a second, there are plenty of emails that I recommend reading that have similar veins in this with connections between the scientists and the green organizations.  The relevant emails in this regard are:

1006, 1216, 2890, 3141, 4127, 4221, 4280, 4330, 5233. (some have been mentioned earlier, but that is just the exhaustive list.)

Again, this shows us that there is definite connections between scientists and activists which goes far beyond normal working relationships and go towards a belief and or cause (as they call it.)  I seem to think this is evidence that we must be careful and we must act now.

The BBC has already been shown to be biased as in this news article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066706/BBC-sought-advice-global-warming-scientists-economy-drama-music–game-shows.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

This bias where activists and scientists would give the BBC advice on how to show only one side of the issue is very clear and the BBC actually paid these people to help them stay biased.  That is a nightmare coming to the BBC as it shows that not only did they use public funds to help them deceive their own public, but they would also allow these same scientists and activists to edit programs to show the right message for “the cause.”

And we could go on and on how the plot has thickened in the AGW debate since the release of more emails which shows even more scientists who broke the law (but will not be prosecuted due to statute of limitations issues.)  In other words, the emails prove even more so then the first set of climate-gate emails that these scientists lie, cheat, steal and do anything they can get away with to fulfill their false science under the guise of the “pre-cautionary principle.”  This is strictly speaking nothing about science but more about a cult.   The BBC is biased as shown, and there are roughly 220,000 emails still locked away to be released for various reasons.  These emails at some point will be released and if they hold as many bombshells as this current set does, well then…the end result is exactly the same and the level that this corruption exists to is anyone’s guesses.  I will remind everyone that very few emails have surfaced between politicians and scientists which I will remind everyone is sure to be contained in the remaining emails.

So if this does not break the camel’s back, the next batch ought to ruin more than some scientists and activists.

Let us also remember that these same scientists telling the world that they never lied when the evidence is right in front of the scientists is even more outrageous.  The only solution to this is obvious, and it involves removing green activism in any form by removing the tax-exempt status these organizations have and taxing them and putting rules on them as far as lobbying in politics goes.  As for the scientists, I fully believe a good portion of them do deserve jail time for breaking laws.  And the solution is to wash them out of academia first and then prosecute them for crimes they have committed including fraud.

Same goes for the activists, if they committed fraud on people by lying and cheating to generate income in any form, they too are guilty of fraud under our laws.

So the evidence is there for everyone to read, the question is what are we going to do about it?  Are we going to allow them 2 years again to get off with a slap on the wrist for employing these techniques?

Or will we actually hold them accountable for their actions as normal people should be?

The demise of Coal in the US

Not many people are aware of the scope and depth of new regulations that are being set on industry in general.  This is not just true in the coal industry, but I use coal as an example to show how over-regulating anything creates issues and how these regulations are in other words going to destroy the coal industry in the US.  While most opponents of AGW are focusing on the science or on laws, the current president has set into stone regulations through the EPA and other organizations that make in impossible to make a profit today in opening up new coal plants (and other industry) through mostly blunt instruments that do nothing but destroy the ability of coal to function.

I discussed a little bit about this in how President Obama wants to “bankrupt coal” in a previous blog post as far as how it does not work economically: Right here.

Here is a map of the actual closures slated for the next 10-15 years:

As it should be noted, these closures are spread out in many different areas of the country.

Keystone Pipeline Expansion dead in the water

Thanks to the Obama administration who instead of thinking about doing the right thing attempted to “appease some of those 5% minorities.”  The project is now dead in the water with 18 months set to complete a scientific study to figure out the effect this would have on the region.  From Canada’s financial minister Flaherty :

“The decision to delay it that long is actually quite a crucial decision. I’m not sure this project would survive that kind of delay.” 

So obviously the decision to post-pone the decision (kind of ironic) forces the decision anyhow.  So what are the effects of this decision?

100 years of warming means nothing.

Any scientist that even attempts to come to conclusions on global warming with 100 or even 1000 years of data is a fool.  To insist that the temperature trends of BEST mean anything or that any trends that we see have meaning is assuming so much when what we really lack is real information….the warming over the last 100 years for instance is nothing but a second in a day of the climate, and to claim that you know everything there is to know about the climate based on 100 or even 1000 years is to be the expert fool.   I think the problem here is an educational issue where scientists so fell in love with ideals and computers that they forgot the first step in the scientific process where we actually have to prove what they state.  In this case, we are left with science in shambles, and a bunch of expert fools running around telling us how we must live our lives.

As this chart shows here, the more long-term trends show us the current trends as being less scary.  If you notice the long-term graph above, the rise in temperatures that has occurred recently is not very scary at all and look rather normal when you look at the big picture.  Should we allow people who show us clipped versions or “selected versions of reality” really tell us how to live our lives?  I think this picture here tells us all we need to know in that regard.  Nothing scary is occurring and even if CO2 has an impact, it is more than likely minor and the warming we have seen in the last 100 years is natural and nothing to be concerned about.