Disgusting

@powerlineblog notes that an invitation to an exercise in exchanging ideas is likely what set Dr. Peter Gleick on his reputational suicide mission.

This guy was chairman of a scientific ethics committee. He was a honcho in the climate Chicken Little industry. His behavior is that of a religious cultist with an IQ of 75, except the Kool-Aid killed only his conscience. He is the True Believer writ larger, and yet even smaller, than Eric Hoffer could have imagined.

Intellectually degenerate. Morally bankrupt. Despicable, mendacious and proud. If science comes to be disrespected, it will be cretins of this sort who should be held responsible. He damages us all. And he is typical of his ilk.

While we’re on the topic, it is worth reading this reality based presentation at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. The climate models are wrong, and the modelers know it. They’ve got nothing left, except character assassination. And they aren’t good at that, either.

The AGW Grant Industry’s inner workings

This has been percolating for a day, and it definitely appears as if the AGW grant industry is suffering another embarrassment at their own hands: Climategate 2.0 emails – They’re real and they’re spectacular!

If you’d like a nice cross section of the flummery and deceit, go here: http://foia2011.org/

You don’t even have to use the search feature, there are many examples already extracted for your reading disdain.

An don’t miss this one: John L. Daly’s message to Mike Mann and The Team

Supreme Deniers

The justices of the United States Supreme Court this week became the world’s most august global warming sceptics. … Global warming is by no means a settled issue, they made clear, suggesting it would be foolhardy to assume it was.

A 5-4 split? What did the Liberals say in dissent? You’ll have to RTWT.

Envirostatist Day

Reason.tv: The Top Five Environmental Disasters that Didn’t Happen

In 1976, Greenpeace became internationally recognized because of their protests against Canada’s annual seal hunt. It was this Greenpeace fundraising scam that kindled my skepticism about environmentalist promoted panics. Greenpeace was quite happy to destroy the livelihood of Newfoundlanders for no reason other than that baby seals are cute enough to boost donations.

Of course, clubbing seals is gruesome – even if humane – but most of the people offended to the point of contribution by viewing the Greenpeace videos have never visited the slaughterhouses from which they receive their neatly packaged steaks. That is quite gruesome, too. No matter, Greenpeace is concerned about the hypocrisy of their donors even less than they are about their own.

The Envirostatist pattern: Produce scant, or even fabricated, evidence about some future environmental catastrophe; insist on strict observance of the precautionary principle; and demand that governments force their citizens to live as if the dire outcome is a certainty, and tax them as if death were not.

None of this is about the environment. Notably absent from the litany of woe is any mention that it is economic liberty, and the wealth created thereby, that produces a better environment. Witness what we discovered about Romanian industrial production after the Berlin Wall came down. There, the government had absolute control of environmental regulations.

When the panics Reason notes (and there were many others) proved to be nothing more than sequential plots to loot governments and force all persons to affirm that the looting was in their best interest, the envirostatists were not dismayed. They proclaimed global cooling, then global warming and morphed that into climate change.

If the precautionary principle were actually the trump Envirostatists portray it to be, they would be demanding trillions of dollars for an asteroid defense system. There is a danger demonstrated to be life-ending on a planetary scale, and the probability of it’s occurence is at least as high as the 0.5 degree reduction in global temperature 30 years in the future; the benefit of the Kyoto Protocol claimed by its proponents.

The application of the precautionary principle as implied by Silent Spring, has made Rachel Carson into a biological mass murderer.

For other interesting views on environmental topics, check some of these links:

They’re always available here, just scroll to the “Environment” section of the links.

Global Gauss Change

Severe weather events may be associated with the recent movement of Earth’s magnetic poles. This is an unsurprising outcome if magnetic north is actually moving. However, associating man’s activities with such movement may be a challenge for proponents of anthropogenic climate change. TOC is here to help.

The magnetic north pole is moving because of the massive amount of iron in those SUVs we drive. The pole has been pulled toward us.

It is obvious that if we did not have so much gasoline we would not drive SUVs, incidentally spitting tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. As Al Gore has told us, the internal combustion engine is evil. We now have even more reason to return to a 19th century agrarian existence.

Unfortunately, former Vice President Gore’s insistence that the “science is settled” hints at an additional, even darker, anthropogenic cause for accelerating magnetic pole shift. It is well known that Mr. Gore’s multiple mansions consume enough electricity to power a medium sized town. What if he is using the power to run immensely strong magnets?

It is suspicious, don’t you think, that the phrase “regaussing galore” is an anagram for “algore guessing,” plus the letters “ra.” As we all know, Ra is the Egyptian god of the sun. Guessing about climate is how Al Gore made his fortune.

Questions that need to be answered: Is Gore purchasing the type of cryogenic materials needed for supercooled electromagnets? Does his reading list include Carl Pestano’s How To Become A Speaker With A Magnetic Personality – Learn The Secret Art Of Public Speaking And Draw In Large Crowds? Is his solar power subsidy support entirely secular? Is he planning another movie titled Inconvenient Fatal Attraction?

A Circle of Wagons

Britain’s University of East Anglia hired some experts to examine possible scientific misconduct by scientists employed at Britain’s University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit. The investigation was mounted when a slew of internal emails cast doubt on the scientists’ theories and characters.

What is not in question: The University of East Anglia CRU scientists had consistently refused to share their data or methods, had arranged for computer programs to be written to manipulate that data in ways favorable to their predetermined conclusions, had conspired to prevent alternate views from publication and, thereby, had generally dismissed the scientific method.

Nonetheless, the experts hired by the University of East Anglia to examine the practices of the scientists hired by the University of East Anglia reported that the core of global-warming research conducted by the scientists was on the up-and-up:

The issue involved an effort to reconstruct the climate history of the past several thousand years using indirect indicators like the size of tree rings and the growth rate of corals. The C.R.U. researchers, leaders in that type of work, were trying in 1999 to produce a long-term temperature chart that could be used in a United Nations publication. [The very IPCC publication whose errors become increasingly rife with age.]

But they were dogged by a problem: Since around 1960, for mysterious reasons, trees have stopped responding to temperature increases in the same way they apparently did in previous centuries. If plotted on a chart, tree rings from 1960 forward appear to show declining temperatures, something that scientists know from thermometer readings is not accurate.

Most scientific papers have dealt with this problem by ending their charts in 1960 or by grafting modern thermometer measurements onto the historical reconstructions.

It is true that most scientific papers followed that dogma. The authors of “most” papers were, of course, kowtowing to the East Anglia potentates and the funding thereby determined. 


CRU gurus were not mystified by trees that suddenly “stopped responding to temperature increases in the same way they apparently did in previous centuries” because the “science was settled.”  They didn’t wonder why their best guesses about global temperatures circa 1100AD – extrapolated from the width of growth rings in half-a-dozen tree fossils from Siberia – failed to agree with modern metrics.  If the data did not fit the theory, the data was the problem.  They just changed it.  The comments in the computer programs are definitive.


The East Anglia scientists said “Hide the decline,” and the review panel agreed.   In the former case it was about climate models.  In the latter, about the integrity of science.