Search This Blog

Saturday, May 08, 2010

Listen to the Humbugs sing...Anthropic Global Warming

There are a number of humbugs that are generally believed by the average American and probably the average Westerner. In fact the majority of sentinent adults on the globe that are interested at all in science and world affairs very likely believe these humbugs. Oh, I apologize, you ask what is a humbug? Let's ask the Merriam Online Dictionary:

Main Entry: 1hum·bug
Pronunciation: \ˈhəm-ˌbəg\
Function: noun
Etymology: origin unknown
Date: 1751

1 a : something designed to deceive and mislead b : a willfully false, deceptive, or insincere person
2 : an attitude or spirit of pretense and deception
3 : nonsense, drivel
4 British : a hard usually mint-flavored candy

synonyms see imposture

hum·bug·gery \-ˌbə-g(ə-)rē\ noun

Humbugs are quite useful in the hands of those seeking power and influence. They are also quite popular in the advancement of worldviews...hmmm. So politics and religion, the great unspoken topics of the 1950's and 1960's (so the liberals said while they began diligently advancing their ideology and power) are quite often associated with humbugs.

Many a worldview stands upon a matter of faith. Faith in God. Faith that there is no God. Faith in human avarice and greed (oft-times rewarded). Faith in the gullibility of the uniformed. Your humbug may well be my standard for all that I believe in and vice-versa.
So we can only present evidence in an attempt to reveal certain concepts/beliefs as humbugs and hope and believe that people will consider the evidence and decide for themselves whether or not a humbug is indeed a humbug. For your edification...

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?


James Delingpole

James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books including Welcome To Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future And It Doesn't Work, How To Be Right, and the Coward series of WWII adventure novels. His website is

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka CRU) and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters.

Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

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. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Supposedly stranded Polar bears on ice. Polar Bear populations were understood to be growing as far back as the early 21st Century and the temperatures in the Arctic have been cyclical anyway. Polar Bears are natural swimmers, having been recorded to have swum more than 60 miles at a time and for several hours at a time with no problems. Global warming would simply be likely to provide more food for Polar Bears and be therefore beneficial to their survival rather than the opposite.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” - CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.

I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.

The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view – which is some of us have been expressing for quite some time: see, for example, the chapter entitled ‘Barbecue the Polar Bears’ in WELCOME TO OBAMALAND: I’VE SEEN YOUR FUTURE AND IT DOESN’T WORK – is now also, thank heaven, the majority view.

Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

But to judge by the way – despite the best efforts of the MSM not to report on it – the CRU scandal is spreading like wildfire across the internet, this shabby story represents a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility from which it is never likely to recover.

UPDATE: I write about this subject a lot and the threads below my posts often contain an impressive range of informed opinion from readers with solid scientific backgrounds (plus lots of cheap swipes from Libtards – but, hey, their discomfort and rage are my joy).

Here are a few links:

Interview in the Spectator with Australian geology Professor Ian Plimer re his book Heaven And Earth. Plimer makes the point that CO2 is not a pollutant – CO2 is plant food, and that climate change is an ongoing natural process.

An earlier scandal at the Climate Research Unit, this time involving “cherry-picked” data samples.

A contretemps with a Climate Bully who wonders whether I have a science degree. (No I don’t. I just happen to be a believer in empiricism and not spending taxpayers’ money on a problem that may well not exist)

59 per cent of UK population does not believe in AGW. The Times decides they are “village idiots”

Comparing “Climate Change” to the 9/11 and the Holocaust is despicable and dumb

Copenhagen: a step closer to one-world government?

UK Government blows £6 million on eco-propaganda ad which makes children cry

and a very funny piece by Damian Thompson comparing the liberal media’s coverage of Watergate with its almost non-existent coverage of Climategate

By the way, Al Gore just bought a huge palace for himself close to the ocean. From Doug Ross and Director Blue website:

The Los Angeles Times reported last week that Al and Tipper Gore greatly expanded their carbon footprint with the purchase of their fourth luxury home. The 'global warming' business has been very, very good to the Gores.

Former Vice President Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, have added a Montecito-area property to their real estate holdings, reports the Montecito Journal... The couple spent $8,875,000 on an ocean-view villa on 1.5 acres with a swimming pool, spa and fountains, a real estate source familiar with the deal confirms. The Italian-style house has six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms.

Given the ocean-view, Gore really can't be too concerned with rising sea levels. A little sleuthing led me to this delightful listing, which I believe is the new Gore residence as: (a) it recently dropped off the listing agent's "for sale" site; and (b) it meets the fairly unique criteria specified by the Montecito Journal.

Don't you love these hypocritical Climatards? (That's the term they prefer, I hear).

They want to control your lives: how big your car can be, how much water your toilet can hold, the kind of light bulbs you can use. They even think there are limits on how much money you should be able to make.

But they put no limits on what they can have. Kind of like the old Soviet Politburo. Which is the kind of society they intend for us.

Linked by: Michelle Malkin, NewsBusters, Linkiest, Moonbattery, Small Dead Animals and Climate Change Fraud. Thanks!

And now linked by Radaractive. You are welcome!


Anonymous said...

Radar, I didn't read that article you copypasta'd, but I'm willing to bet that somewhere in there there's a reference to Climategate, aka the hacked e-mails of the CRU.

So here's the link (again):

Climate Change -- Those hacked emails

creeper said...

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."


in your own words, could you explain what you think is meant by "hide the decline" in this quote?

-- creeper

Hawkeye® said...

I'm going to help Radar out here. To find out what "hide the decline" means, go to...

Hawkeye® said...

Or, you might like this one better...

Anonymous said...


Creeper asked Radar specifically to explain in his own words. Do you somehow think he is uncapable of doing that?

highboy said...

"Creeper asked Radar specifically to explain in his own words. Do you somehow think he is uncapable of doing that?"

Are you "uncapable" of understanding that until radar says otherwise, that this is an open forum and anyone is allowed to respond?

creeper said...

Of course me asking Radar to explain something in his own words in an open forum doesn't prevent anyone else from throwing in some YouTube links or what have you.

But my question to Radar still stands.

-- creeper

radar said...

Thanks Hawkeye and Highboy. Yes, this is an open forum where people can say what they will within the limits of basic decorum. "Hide the decline" is too easy. Ask the guy who wrote the words. I did not write that. I would have said they did not simply hide the decline but tried to artificially provide a faked rise in temps.

These "scientists" found that temperatures that were actually in decline rather than raised and they did not want the public to know it. In fact one reason I have begun the humbug series is because it has become obvious that ideologues are not just spinning the evidence, they are hiding it and making it up.

In the case of AGW proponents, they have done all these things. That Mann hockey stick graph was a deliberate decaption, as was the CRU fiddling with data and trying to rig it to show what their beliefs required. The audit headed up by Wattsupwiththat has discovered a deliberate shift of weather stations to set stations in obvious heat islands - atop asphalt roofs, in front of air conditioner exhausts, alongside airplane runways and etc. Also, these same "scientists" were filtering the reporting stations and rigging that data as well. This is happening for sure in the USA and Canada. Where else?

radar said...

The coupe de grace is Gore building his FOURTH estate with an ocean view. We can tell by his actions what he believes. He knows the sea levels are not going to rise and he could give a rip about his carbon footprint, he just shilled a lot of people out of money to watch his buffoonery while investing in carbon offset concerns to make even more money so he can private jet around from place to place. Another complete and outright hypocrite.

creeper said...

""Hide the decline" is too easy. Ask the guy who wrote the words. I did not write that. I would have said they did not simply hide the decline but tried to artificially provide a faked rise in temps.

These "scientists" found that temperatures that were actually in decline rather than raised and they did not want the public to know it."

It's "too easy", but is your answer really that "temperatures" were in decline? That's what you think the decline in "hide the decline" refers to?

Seems difficult to believe that, despite Hawkeye even helping you out with a link that explains it, you'd still get it wrong.

-- creeper

radar said...

No creeper, I don't have it wrong. Whereas the first explanation for "the decline" involves the tree ring and other "proxy" data Phil and the boys didn't want to include in their charts, the best temperature measurements available show that temperatures have been in decline as measured by weather stations and sea drones when the intentional warming tricks are filtered out.

In fact Phil Jones and company tried to hide the little ice age and the medieval warming period in their charts as well. They did not simply hide the decline, they hid the variations as well, trying to make weather look stable until us bad old humans began building factories!

Global temperatures are declining. I had better do a follow up for those not paying attention.

CO2 is plant food, not dangerous.
CO2 is normally found to increase after temperatures increase and decline after temperatures decline.
CO2 is fools gold in that it fools people into thinking AGW is real and it is gold in the pockets of people like Al Gore and Barack Obama.

creeper said...

Radar, you've given no indication that you understood what the "decline" in "hide the decline" was referring to; more like you looked it up after you were called on it.

"CO2 is plant food, not dangerous."

The two are not mutually exclusive.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

highboy said:

"Are you "uncapable" of understanding that until radar says otherwise, that this is an open forum and anyone is allowed to respond?"

I'm perfectly capable of understanding that, thank you very much.
However, if you would have applied some comprehensive reading, you would have noticed that I never said that Hawkeye isn't allowed to respond but instead asked him why he felt the need to help Radar out.
And as such, the question still stands.

Jargon = J&G said...

"Faith in the gullibility of the uniformed."

Who are the most gullible in uniform?