Articles Tagged "Joanna Nova"

Dear ClimateRealists

Just a short note to thank you for featuring my ClimateGate timeline on your site a few weeks back. For the past 4 weeks its been revised, edited and updated and I wanted to advise you the latest version has just been published on JoNova's site and if you would be kind enough to spread the word I would be grateful.

Thanks for your help and support.

Best regards,

Mohib

Click source link to see the Revised and Edited ClimateGate Timeline (1.1)

Over 300 people have rallied in support of Peter Spencer outside Parliament House today, and the ABC* have covered it (at least on their website).

Click source to read FULL article

Here’s a Spectacular Poster of ClimateGate Covering 3 Decades

You have to see this to believe it. Look up close and admire the detail while you despair at how long science has been going off the rails. To better appreciate the past and what was exposed by the CRU emails, the Timeline chart consolidates and chronologically organizes the information uncovered and published about the CRU emails by many researchers along with some related contextual events. That the chart exists at all is yet another example of how skilled experts are flocking in to the skeptics’ position and dedicating hours of time pro bono because they are passionately motivated to fight against those who try to deceive us.

Download The PDF (788k)

It’s clear that the world was warmer during medieval times. Marked on the map are study after study (all peer-reviewed) from all around the world with results of temperatures from the medieval time compared to today. These use ice cores, stalagmites, sediments, and isotopes. They agree with 6,144 boreholes around the world which found that temperatures were about 0.5C warmer worldwide.

What follows is a sordid tale of a graph that overthrew decades of work, conveniently fitted the climate models, and was lauded triumphantly in glossy publication after publication. But then it was crushed when an unpaid analyst stripped it bare. It had been published in the highest most prestigious journal, Nature, but no one had checked it before or after it was spread far and wide. Not Nature, not the IPCC, not any other climate researcher.

Click source to read FULL article by Joanna Nova

Picture of Non Scientist from JoanneNova.com article

The New Scientist is making a stand for AGW, like several other so called Scientific media, they are not going down without a fight. The following article goes on to try and discredit REAL SCIENCE in the hope they prop up the FAILED SCIENCE of "Man Made Climate Change". These are very strange times we live in, it must have been similar 150 years ago when Darwin raised the question of evolution and the church went into denial, here we see a similar situation........it can't be long before this SHAM is over, can it?

"Climategate" has put scientists on trial in the court of public opinion. If you believe climate sceptics, a huge body of evidence involving the work of tens of thousands of scientists over more than a century should be thrown out on the basis of the alleged misconduct of a handful of researchers, even though nothing in the hacked emails has been shown to undermine any of the scientific conclusions.

If we are going to judge the truth of claims on the behaviour of those making them, it seems only fair to look at the behaviour of a few of those questioning the scientific consensus. There are many similar examples we did not include. We leave readers to draw their own conclusions about who to trust.

Click to read the one time great New Scientist, and now renamed as the "Embarrassed Scientist"

We all know something is gravely wrong, but what exactly are the crimes implicated? This insight comes from Richard S. Courtney, who has been an expert witness for the UK Parliament, and House of Lords, the IPCC and was one of 15 scientists invited to speak for the US congress in 2000.

The following is quoted by Richard Courtney:-

Jones, Briffa and Mann seem to have committed several criminal offences.

These include:

1. Misappropriation of public funds
They deliberately falsified data then used the results of the falsification to obtain additional research funding. This is criminal fraud under English Law.

2. Deliberate attempt to prevent disclosure of information that was requested under the FOI Act
They colluded to destroy information that was the subject of an FOI request. This is a criminal offence under English Law.

The world is considering a new financial market larger than any commodity, it’s “based on science” but if you ask for evidence, you’re called names - “Denier”, and by our Prime Minister, no less. This is supposed to pass for reasoned debate?

In 6000 words Rudd uses ad hominem attacks, baseless allegations, argument from authority, mindless inflammatory rhetoric and quotes not a single piece of evidence that carbon drives our climate. He repeats quote after quote of sensible, ordinary points from his opponents as if it shows they are confused. Yet he can’t point out how any of them are wrong. It shows the depth of his own delusions - that he thinks merely questioning “the UN committee” is a flaw in itself.

It’s as if being a sceptic is a bad thing, yet the opposite of sceptical is gullible. Rudd throws baseless innuendo when he claims vested interests are at work. The truth is the exact opposite. Exxon spent $23 million on sceptics, but the US government spent $79 billion on the climate industry. Big Government outspent big-oil 3000 to 1. Worse, carbon trading last year was $126 billion dollars. That’s for just one year. The real vested interests stand in the open like signposted black holes hidden in plain view by a legal disclaimer. The singularities at the centre of the climate change galaxy have names like Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, ABN Amro, Deutsche Bank, and HSBC.

A big news day. It appears Steve McIntyre (volunteer unpaid auditor of Big-Government-Science) has killed the Hockey Stick a second time…

The details are on the last three days of Steve McIntyre’s site Climate Audit, and summed up beautifully on Watts Up.

An example of a scientific association behaving like a teenage school-girl: repeating baseless assumptions, and spurning colleagues who disagree.

The price for speaking out against global warming is exile from your peers, even if you are at the top of your field. What follows is an example of a scientific group that not only stopped a leading researcher from attending a meeting, but then - without discussing the evidence - applauds the IPCC and recommends urgent policies to reduce greenhouse gases. What has science been reduced to if bear biologists feel they can effectively issue ad hoc recommendations on worldwide energy use? How low have standards sunk if informed opinion is censored, while uninformed opinion is elevated to official policy?

If a leading researcher can’t speak his mind without punishment by exile, what chance would any up-and-coming researcher have? As Mitchell Taylor points out “It’s a good way to maintain consensus”. And so it is. But it’s not science. Mitchell Taylor is a Polar Bear researcher who has caught more polar bears and worked on more polar bear groups than any other, but he was effectively ostracized from the Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) specifically because he has publicly expressed doubts that there is a crisis due to carbon dioxide emissions.

Dr. Andy Derocher, the outgoing chairman of the PSBG and Professor at the University of Alabama, wrote to inform Taylor that he was not welcome at the 2009 meeting of the PBSG. Keep in mind as you read his comments (below) that Taylor had arranged funding to attend the meeting in Copenhagen, and has been at every meeting of this group since 1981. With 30 years of experience in polar bear research, it goes without saying that he has something to contribute to any discussion about polar bear conservation. This is the original email from Derocher to Taylor explaining why he was not invited:

One of the signs of a change in the slope of temperatures is the change in the slope of PR descriptions.

After chanting “The hottest year ever recorded” the message became the “second hottest year on record”, and after that, four of the five hottest years ever; and now, eight of the ten hottest years.