New information on the CRU emails, now it appears it may not be a hack but a insider:
The anonymous tipster, whom many people initially assumed had “hacked” into the computers at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (repeatedly called the “Hadley CRU,” by mistake), might in fact be a CRU insider who released the files for his own reasons.
The user, known only as “FOIA” (which now appears to be a reference to the British equivalent of the US Freedom of Information Act), left only one comment on The Air Vent to announce his release of his 61-MB ZIP archive. He has never been heard from since, nor has anyone stepped forward claiming to be that person since the story became widely known.
Persons knowledgeable in information security hold that this is not the behavior of a hacker. A hacker normally boasts of his act, even if he were hired or otherwise suborned to commit his act by someone else. These two reports provide illustrations of such behavior.
Other commenters have observed that the very form and organization of the archive, which expands to 168 MB of text files, word-processing documents, PDF files, raw data, and even program code, indicate that someone already having access to the system logged in through his usual channels, made the archive, and then logged out. The user’s choice of words indicate someone having a motive to disclose to the world certain activities and mindsets that the user found distasteful, at least.
This Examiner has been able to reconstruct a timeline of the story
Read the original article to see the timeline, it is quite damning evidence that this was no hacker, but an insider and it all boils down to:
Mr. Stephen McIntyre at Climate Audit has made no secret of his repeated attempts to demand, under Britain’s Freedom of Information Act, that Phil Jones and his team yield up the data that are the basis of their claims for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and its effects. Preliminary analysis of the archived e-mails also indicates that Jones knew of McIntyre’s efforts and was taking steps to stall and thwart them, in violation of the law. Perhaps, then, someone at CRU decided to take the law into his own hands.
Doesn’t surprise me one bit that they would resort to violate the law….all in the name of “science”
See author page
@MataHarley: “I am unanimous in this. “
Oh, oh. She’s channeling Mrs. Slocum again. Does that make Turdo Mr. Humphries?
tsk tsk, Mike… such a slam for such a great character as Mr. Humphries. LOL In fact, every cast member is a serious cut above our drive by AGW British leming.
On other fronts, Curt posted a London Times article by Lord Nigel Lawson of Blaby – former Chancellor of the Exchequer in the 80s. They launched a new website call The Global Warming Policy Foundation, described as an all-party and non-party think tank educational charity.
So much for the unmatched-in-brillance-Turbo, still labouring under the impression there is “… no organised sceptic movement in the UK…” Apparently Lord Dawson and his TGWPF cohorts, Dr Benny Peiser, other trustees, and those on their academic advisory council harbor enough skepticism and are organised enough to be founding a website dedicated to wading thru the BS.
Lord Lawson is calling for a “a rigorous and independent” public inquiry into the CRU data scandal.
no shit, sherlock….
Meanwhile, back in the real world… Patvann, your question about water vapour IR absorbtion is clearly intended to show the conclusion that water vapour covers part of the CO2 IR spectra. This is true but only for a small part of the atmosphere. Sorry that I don’t indulge you by giving a reply that satisfies you, but it wouldn’t show much. Also note that at temperatures below freezing the actual amount of water vapour in the air i.e. “specific”, not relative, humidity is vanishingly small.
You also ask what % of greenhouse effect is due to water vapour: you can’t calculate iteasily, because it is dependent on the specific humidity and the pressure. That’s why you need a program like MODTRAN with the appropriate data.
What is interesting is that some US companies are world leaders in the remote sensing of gas leaks using aircraft. They can detect CO2 plumes by their IR signature: that wouldn’t be possible if water vapour hid it totally.
BTW where did I diss HM. You guys have really strong imaginations.
Who’s going to try to defend WUWT then?
Hadmattah: 1) you are making too many assumptions about the motives of Jones on the basis of what has been fed to you. You also assume that they had the resources to keep the data.
The Warwick Hughes comment has been bandied around the Internet by deniers for years. Here’s the full e-mail:
“Jones to Hughes, Feb 21, 2005
Subject: Re: WMO non respondo
Warwick,Hans Teunisson will reply. He’ll tell you which other people should reply. Hans is”Hans Teunissen”
I should warn you that some data we have we are not supposed top pass on to others.We can pass on the gridded data – which we do. Even if WMO agrees, I will still notpass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I makethe data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.There is IPR to consider.
You can get similar data from GHCN at NCDC. Australia isn’t restricted there.
Several European countries are. Basically because, for example, France doesn’t want theFrench picking up data on France from Asheville. Meteo France wants to supply data tothe French on France. Same story in most of the others.
Cheers
Phil”
And what about this:
“Feb, 10, 2007 East Anglia Reply
Your request for information received on 28 September now been considered and I can
report that the information requested is available on non-UEA websites as detailed below.
The Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN-Monthly) page within US National
Climate Data Centre website provides one of the two US versions of the global dataset
and includes raw station data. This site is at:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/index.php
This page is where you can get one of the two US versions of the global dataset, and it
appears that the raw station data can be obtained from this site.
Datasets named ds564.0 and ds570.0 can be found at The Climate & Global Dynamics
Division (CGD) page of the Earth and Sun Systems Laboratory (ESSL) at the National
Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) site at: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/tn404/
Between them, these two datasets have the data which the UEA Climate Research Unit
(CRU) uses to derive the HadCRUT3 analysis. The latter, NCAR site holds the raw
station data (including temperature, but other variables as well). The GHCN would give
their set of station data (with adjustments for all the numerous problems).
They both have a lot more data than the CRU have (in simple station number counts), but
the extra are almost entirely within the USA. We have sent all our data to GHCN, so they
do, in fact, possess all our data.
In accordance with S. 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 this letter acts as a
Refusal Notice, and the reasons for exemption are as stated below
Exemption Reason: s. 21, Information accessible to applicant via other means Some
information is publicly available on external websites
If you have a complaint about the handling of your enquiry then please contact me at
University of East Anglia
Norwich
You also have a right of appeal to the Information Commissioner at: Information
Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Yours sincerely
David Palmer
Information Policy Officer
University of East Anglia”
http://www.climateaudit.org/correspondence/cru.correspondence.pdf
2) “The GWPF accepts that anthropogenic global warming is occurring, but wants open, frank debate, that according to the GWPF has so far failed to take place, about what policies should be adopted.”
Yep that’s the sort of sceptics we have in the UK: they went to our schools.
BTW the GWPF was only set up a couple of months ago.
3) Calling it the FOIC is as obvious as writing honor instead of honour, organize instead of organise. And posting it on a Russian site too. You guys are sooo busted.
Why are you guys so terrified about doing anything about AGW? Since Kyoto the EU has cut CO2 emissions by over 10%, just by being more efficient. In the 1980’s I drove a Ford Escort XR3i: 0-60 in about 9 secs, average mpg (uk gallons) 30. Today I drive bigger car, a Nissan P12, same acceleration, slightly higher top speed (which it’s legal to drive at in parts of Europe) and nearly 50 mpg on average. (OK it’s a turbo diesel, so the engine note is crap.) How do we see the US respond: with a bunch of Hummers and SUVs, no wonder that your car sales abroad are dismal.
A salutory lesson maybe: two main oil companies in the UK: BP and Shell. Last year Shaell announced that solar energy would never be commercially viable. BP said it that they making money on solar. What’s the difference between the two? BP invested in solar energy and has patents; Shell didn’t and has to licence technology.
Oi Flashman: I didn’t come here to get embroiled in a debate about AGW: my intention was to comment on the flawed insider theory in the lead article. So calling me a troll for replying to subsequent challenges and questions addressed to me seems a bit harsh especially as you asked me some of those questions.
Must go: I’m off to a town meeting on what sanctions to take against the US for hacking the CRU database. I’ll let you know how it goes.
Oh noze!!!! THE BRITISH ARE COMING THE BRITISH ARE COMING!!!
Will you write us strongly-worded letters?
Will you threaten us with your dentistry?
Force us to eat your food?
Let’s review this, shall we?
-No proof as to who did this nasty bit of hacking has emerged, but they want sanctions against Americans regardless.
-No proof warming is caused by Man’s CO2, but they want santions against everyone.
-The arrival of a toothless twit stamping his little British feet whining and pissing about the illegality of this hack, then proceeds to quote from the same hack.
Piss-off.
P.S. Wanna see the proposal from Hadley to work with Shell?
@ Mata
Thanks Mata, I was wondering if anyone got that. I was pretty sure Turbo was the only one it flew over.
I’m going to work on my asteroid theory. If those guys can get $100 million and not have to prove their research is accurate, surely I can get $50 million. Every secondary school child in Madagascar knows it was the CO² from dinosaur flatulence that attracted the asteroid that wiped out said dinosaurs. I just want to make sure we don’t make the same mistake. Yeah, $50 million shoud cover it.
I have proof that Global warming is caused by the lack of pirates.
-When there were pirates, the planet was cool.
-We killed them, and it got warmer.
-The Somali pirates start up, and it got cool again.
Now pay me.
@MataHarley: You’re right. Our Turdo here has all the officiousness (or maybe oafishness would be better) of Capt. Peacock. A toothless tiger if ever there was one.
As for the WARMER DENIERS who say that there is no organized skeptic movement in Britain, I wonder if it comes from the same folks who pushed the big lie we heard so often in years past that “no credible scientist” disputes the WARMERS alarmism?
You notice how desperate our WARMER friend is to try and set the agenda for discussion with a tiresome spew of acronym laden gobbledygook?
That demonstrates perfectly how the WARMERS have attempted to hijack the science by corrupting even the language behind it.
And as for that raw data, we’ve seen so many examples of how worthless and corrupted most of that has become. Whether it’s the omissions or errors, deliberate or otherwise, or the fanciful idea that planting temperature monitoring stations next to heat sources is a good idea:
So many more here:
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/
Full report on the temperature monitoring problem here:
http://www.heartland.org/books/PDFs/SurfaceStations.pdf
@ Patvann
I don’t know Patvann. Do you have any secondary school children is some country that are well versed in this theory? I have Madagascar.
An for Turboblocke
I know it’s the height of arrogance to tell a Brit how they use their language and all, but it seems Viscount Monckton disagrees with you. He says the UK has a Freedom of Information Act, and what the “scientists” at CRU did is criminal and they will soon find out that very fact for themselves. You can read his very well written remarks HERE at Pajamas Media
He doesn’t really call them “scientists” though. He has a few other choice names for them.
Good primer on the emails here:
@Aqua: Good find! I love Lord Monckton. He sends shivers down the spine of these WARMERS!
An excerpt:
@Patvann, …. too funny, guy. Followed rapidly by your undisputable evidence of global warming linked to the existance of piracy! What a hoot to the morning’s start.
Meanwhile Turbo’half’charged is running half-cocked to a town meeting to demand something be done for “…the US for hacking the CRU database.”
uh… Turbo…what was that he said? Oh yes…
uhhh…mmmm….. right ho, mate.
The lynch mob remark was, of course, right on the heels of the Brit twit’s lecture on how it’s oh so wrong to condemn based on speculation. Rather like speculation of an email handle is “evidence” of guilt. oh my
Well, maybe that razor thin “proof” plays well in Britain’s parallel sharia law courts, resulting in a good stoning or loss of limb or two. But somehow I doubt a western court system and/or diplomatic office will bite on Turbo’half-charged’s poison apple. But we certainly see his political science stance, his feelings towards the US, and his forked tongue quite clearly. This, of course, makes his every cyber utterance a question mark for truth and intent/motive.
Speaking of the speculation game, note Curt’s post of email text, and the use of FoI. By golly… that must be proof positive that Turbo’half-cocked is actually a CRU employee, desperately covering his tracks… right? After all it was he and his mates who “never” refer to it as FOIA.
Since I’m quite sure he doesn’t know everyone in the UK, we have to be speaking about his circle of associates. So I’m here to aver firm speculation that Turbo’s a CRU employee/mole/troll – here to defend their dastardly deeds and distract from the expose’ and start a “lynch mob” mentality instead. LOL
Aqua, no problem. I speak and comprehend your English quite well. Just thought it was another snobby remark to portray you as “asking” anything, then lecture the rest of us (or me, specifically) on comprehension. Worthy of a BS call, don’t you think?
Ya know, Mike’s A, Capt. Peacock really might be closer…. but Peacock had some very likeable qualities. So far, Turbo the Brilliant, demonstrates no redeeming qualities. So I still think that insulting any cast member is simply unthinkable!
That’s odd: where’s my last post gone?
If my posts are being blocked that’s not playing fair.
To recap: there was no town meeting. It was a trap to get some good quotes from you guys: like PV’s: “-No proof as to who did this nasty bit of hacking has emerged, but they want sanctions against Americans regardless. ”
And now MH’s:” The lynch mob remark was, of course, right on the heels of the Brit twit’s lecture on how it’s oh so wrong to condemn based on speculation. Rather like speculation of an email handle is “evidence” of guilt. oh my
Well, maybe that razor thin “proof” plays well in Britain’s parallel sharia law courts, resulting in a good stoning or loss of limb or two. But somehow I doubt a western court system and/or diplomatic office will bite on Turbo’half-charged’s poison apple.”
Thanks Guys shows how even handed you are: you have no evidence that a crime was committed and on the basis of a few e-mails you condemn the scientists. I threaten to convict you on similarly wafer thin evidence and you call foul. Buy a mirror.
Here’s a thought: those 1000 e-mails cover over 10 years and there are many people involved. Do you really believe you’re getting a fair picture.
Turbo’half-charged sez:
The basis of a few emails? Laughable. The “evidence” of nefarious back room data manipulation and the concerted effort at stifling debate has been mounting for years, as noted in my July 2008 post. The distribution of this database only lends more credence to the agenda driven “science”.
Turbo, on the other hand, rests his speculation on the choice of a cyber handle. Count me duly unimpressed.
Aqua nailed it perfectly. It’s 10 years (at least) of history of massive cover up to meet a political agenda.
Speaking of Aqua and Turbo’s inability to comprehend…
And here I thought the Brits held a monopoly on sarcasm and dry wit. Guess not….
@ Turboblocke
Yes. A picture of people that have spent the last ten years trying to build an agenda, not do scientific research. It is really that simple Turboblocke. Nothing more, nothing less. If they want their data taken seriously, they want others to be able to duplicate it. That is how science works…period. You want people to challenge your findings, because you have the scientific proof to back up your claims.
Mike: you really should have a look at my post 47 and go to http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes
WUWT has fooled a lot of people: you don’t have to be one.
MH: Lawsons think tank was set up in August this year: just in time to FUD before Copenhagen.
Still don’t understand why Aqua’s “Why hide the raw data if you have nothing to hide.” is not considered a question.
Turdo
But here’s the thing twinkee…I do have evidence of cover-ups. Lot’s of it right from the source’s keyboard. It’s begun to come down to which ones will make the biggest splash so that we can shut them up permanently, and you along with them. (After you complete therapy, of course)
And if all you want is quotes of of mine, I gotta a million of them lined up and ready. No need to lie first and play tricksies, I’ll tell you them right up front!
I guess living so close to all the lying bags of crap at Hadley has rubbed off on you. If you noticed buttmunch, none of us took you serious, nor does anyone really give a fig.
Now if you’re quite done playing child-games, I think I hear your mum calling.
I have never understood the conservative dogma as it relates to global warming. You folks mean to tell me that you think all the burning of carbon fuels is a NEUTRAL to the environment? Hmm . . . interesting.
I will not try to argue here about the “flat earther” approach to global warming; it is dogma that no amount of science will ever. But I do have one question: Japan, hardly a “leftist”, “ant9o-capitalistic” country has been working on more efficient electricity production, low-carbon economic and industrial policy. They are taking the science to heart. So if man-made global warming is some kind of lefty California tree-hugger plot with no real “scientifiuc basis” as you folks claim . . . then why was Japan convinced enough start going green years ago?
Perhaps, billy bob, you don’t understand the “dogma” because you think in extremes and black and white. Substitute “neutral” with “negligable” and you’re closer to understanding.
Why more efficient electric production and better emission controls? Air quality, not global warming. I daresay most of us are good with improving air quality as long as it’s not cost prohibitive for consumer energy costs. And there is little that is more stable and efficient for production costs than oil and natural gas…. neither of which the warmers advocate developing. Coal also offers great possibilities.
Warmists, however, go to the extreme for erroneous reasons, and care little about the economic repercussions vs the tangible results.
@ B-Rob
Yeah? I don’t understand the left thinking everything is a matter of life and death and that you need to lie to promote your agenda. Healthcare – do it now or we’re doomed. Global Warming – go green now, or we’re doomed.
Ever been to Tokyo? I have. You can cut the air with a knife. I don’t know of anyone that doesn’t want to find more energy efficient ways to produce power. Do you honestly think there are people on the right that sit up a night and dream of ways to ensure power production pollutes the globe as much as possible? By the same token, people on the left continously thwart efforts by energy producers to modernize. Try to build a nuke plant, get sued. Try to build a modern refinery, get sued. Look in the mirror B-Rob, your side is the problem. And the only solution you guys have is to declare the sky is falling.
Dang, Aqua… a minute apart in our posts and saying about the same thing…. Great minds, ya know! LOL
B-Rob
I have a question for you.
What would it take for you to believe you’ve been lied to in regard to the recent warming?
I ask this in all seriousness.
@ Mata
I saw that. It’s synchronicity. Curt should change the Weekly Open Thread Pic from a Cheetah guarding her cubs to some Cheetahs ready to pounce on global warming caribou.
“2nd East Anglia Refusal, Apr 12, 2007
In regards the “gridded network” stations, I have been informed that the Climate
Research Unit’s (CRU) monthly mean surface temperature dataset has been constructed
principally from data available on the two websites identified in my letter of 12 March
2007. Our estimate is that more than 98% of the CRU data are on these sites.
The remaining 2% of data that is not in the websites consists of data CRU has collected
from National Met Services (NMSs) in many countries of the world. In gaining access to
these NMS data, we have signed agreements with many NMSs not to pass on the raw
station data, but the NMSs concerned are happy for us to use the data in our gridding, and
these station data are included in our gridded products, which are available from the CRU
web site. These NMS-supplied data may only form a very small percentage of the
database, but we have to respect their wishes and therefore this information would be
exempt from disclosure under FOIA pursuant to s.41. The World Meteorological
Organization has a list of all NMSs.”
Taken from Climate Audit here: http://www.climateaudit.org/correspondence/cru.correspondence.pdf
If you read all the correspondence you can see how the FOI request was perceived as harrassment by CRU: everytime they gave McI info, he just asked for more in more detail. Even when told that it was publically available, he demanded it from them and wouldn’t look for it himself. Even when told it wasn’t theirs to give he demanded it, rather than going to the actual owners of the data.
And as you can see from the above its only 2% of the data he couldn’t get. What do you imagine it hides?
B-Rob It’s not just Japan. In my missing post, I asked why is the US so scared of combatting AGW. In the EU we have reduced emissions by 10% with no loss of standard of living by being more efficient. In the 1980’s I drove a Ford Escort XR3i, 0-60 in 9.7 seconds, average fuel consumption of 30mpg (UK gallons). My daily driver now is a Nissan Primera P12, 0-60 in about the same time, bigger car, higher top speed (which I can actually use in Germany) and 50mpg. (OK it’s a diesel, so sounds crap, but it pulls like a train). Oh yes and it will go round corners too. 😉
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate
Latest press release from UEA.
Latest release from Patvann:
Gee Mick. If I ever broached the idea to fudge data, my boss would have fired me on the spot. Your boss is waaaay more “cool” than mine.
Were you saying something Turdo?
ROTFLMAO! Okay, I just can’t resist…
from the British leming’s link… spin from the Pro-Vice Chancellor of CRU
From the “stolen” material, as posted by PatVann
Priceless….
Here’s the extra hoot…. if global warming is all the rage, why isn’t Jones hanging out in Greenland (where he can document where it’s supposed to be getting warmer) instead of Iceland (where it’s already “warm”)??
Oh what a tangled web we weave… most of us have figured out their game a few years ago. However we do give Phil and company a H/T for their own confirmation of the corruption.
🙂
And that’s not even from the “Goodstuff” file.
As the great philosopher Bugs Bunny said:
“Ehh… He don’t know me very well, do he?…Watta maroon!”
Hopefully, Patvann, you and family are saving the commercial zinger for the ever-anticipated “post”.
BTW… big toe is developing calluses from tapping, tapping tapping. But I am ever patient for thorough materials, and well armed with a “Ped-Egg” as a temporary solution!
Oh yeah. It’ll be good.
The writing has begun, while being interspersed with actual life. 🙂
(Me and wifey are now foster-folks of a young lady aiming to go into the Corps)
Messin with this clown-car driving Brit, is so bloody FUN!!!
Patvann quoted: “Just updated my global temperature trend graphic for a public talk…”
A public talk ain’t the same as peer-reviewed science.
Next please…
(BTW back to the pissing contest are we? OK then on the subject of clown cars: what’s the name of the US Formula 1 racing team again which so convincingly won the World Championship er whenever it was, with er whatshisname at the wheel? Oh deary me, there wasn’t one. )
@ Turboblocke
That’s funny. Getting spanked in the debate so you move to Formula 1 racing? We got Danica Patrick. We’re Americans. We don’t need to win Formula 1, we just need to see Danica get in and out of the car. You guys really have your priorities mixed up over there.
I hope one of our wonderful moderators embeds this. It is hilarious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk&feature=player_embedded
[You got it, M.A.]
Funny how our Climate Criminal, the WARMER Turboblocke , talks about “peer-reviewed science “ while at the same time commenting on a post where the other Climate Criminals openly discuss ways to corrupt that very process.
Thanks Aqua: you make an interesting point (well two actually.) Google offered me the option of “danica patrick swimsuit” which I accepted in Google Images. Bliss. 🙂
FWIW I only mentioned F1 because of some silly clowncar comment.
MA I guess you haven’t been following the discussion elsewhere which puts these e-mails into context. You might have been justified in making your comment a few day ago but now that the context has been revealed, your interpretation seems a bit extreme.
Shame about the video: let me refer you back to Harry Flashman’s question at 26 “1.Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5 per cent since 1998 whilst global temperature cooled over the same period? If so, why did the temperature not increase; and how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?”
And my post 30 “Assuming you’re right about the CO2 increase and the global cooling (which is a cherry pick, which I won’t go into now): the Earth’s climate is complex with many influences, there are natural causes of climate change and man made ones. In this question you are postulating that the only influence on temperature is CO2. Do you really believe that? If you do believe it, you are wrong. If you don’t believe it, why ask this question?”
So Aqua: do you accept the video as a clear and true representation of the facts?
If anyone wants to discuss AGW in a civilised environment you’re welcome to come here: http://boards.fool.co.uk/Messages.asp?bid=51649
@Turboblocke lectures: ” MA I guess you haven’t been following the discussion elsewhere which puts these e-mails into context. “
Clearly in your mind the issues raised in ALL these emails are a dead issue. What a surprise. You’re still not able to accept that the Sun is the driver of climate change on earth so your objectivity is questionable.
We don’t need these emails to know that you climate criminals have been actively trying to discredit the skeptics and have done your best to keep their work from being published in peer reviewed journals. The evidence on this issue is so overwhelming that it’s not even a debatable point.
On that point at least the debate is over: you climate criminals and eco-fascists have done everything you can to silence any and all opposition.
You don’t represent science. You represent world socialism.
@ Turboblocke
I accept the video for what it is, funny. As for global warming or climate change, I want the facts. Not made up facts, not facts that are manipulated, just the facts.
I’m a telecommunications engineer. As such, I’m very interested in the weather and the sun’s solar activity. Solar flares, and atmospheric ducting tend to play havoc with terrestrial microwave. So, besides having the weather channel up all the time, there is another site I look at almost daily. I don’t see how anyone could look at this site and tell me the sun doesn’t play a major role in our climate. http://www.solarcycle24.com/
No matter what else you read in the emails Turboblocke, you have to admit the information from CRU and our boys here at Goddard is less than forthcoming. When you actively work to keep skeptics from looking at your data and only allow those with the same agenda to peer review your work, you undermine the scientific process. Once you do that, it is very difficult to regain the public trust.
If you want to know why we are currently in a cooling pattern and why we were previously in a heating pattern, look at the website I provided. It’s all about the sunspots.
Formula 1. How inefficient. All that fuel used, made from foodstuffs, that should have gone to starving kids in Leeds. Get with the science.
1000 hp per liter, no petrol used.
@Patvann: You mean this?
Full size image here:
http://i635.photobucket.com/albums/uu80/Patvann/6a010536b58035970c0120a5e507c9970c.png
You have to use the direct link to images. The embed code won’t work for you. Maybe we can talk to Curt about that?
Thank you kind sir.
Now that I know which format to use, I may have better luck.
Interesting gragh, no?
@Patvann: There are so many reasons why CO2 is NOT the cause of global warming. You’ve just added one more.
Behind it all is the fact that we do not yet understand how the climate works. Clearly the climate criminals have it wrong. Their models are so deeply flawed that they must hide the truth as best they can. And yet, they continue to insist we must embark on a course which drastically alters our lifestyle, our economic system and our system of governance.
Based solely on scaremongering, not science.
The most blatant part of the hypocrisy is their supposed “cure”.
This “cure” consists of handing money over to the UN to redistribute, while never reducing the “Scary Gas of Doom” one bit. Meanwhile REAL pollution like sulfur is ignored, and in-fact being mused within Hadley as a “cure” for GloBull Worming by using it to block sunlight!
Here’s a little factoid to think over: The 16 largest container ships in the world emit as much Sulfur as 880 million cars…That’s all the cars in the world. There are over 100,000 container/tanker ships of various sizes. The UN gives these ships a “pass” because they are registered in countries deemed “developing” like Panama. The ships could easily be run on low-sulfur diesel, but use Bunker-oil instead. The by-product of this combustion leaves sludge, which they empty into the ocean, once they are away from shore. (While in port, they are usually switched to cleaner diesel from a separate holding-tank.)
Of course, Turdo will now come back with something along the lines of: “Good thing we’ve let them spew sulfur, or the planet would REALLY be hot by now!” Ignoring the thousands of people who die from lung-damage, and the millions of trees killed by acid-rain every year.
Then there’s this pathetic defense:
So lying to the public (including himself) is seen as “acceptable” as long as one doesn’t lie to a fellow scientist. (Whom they are allowed to chose to do the peer- review, unlike any other scientific submission, in any other discipline.)
THIS is seen by him as such a worthy stance that he concludes it with the quip:
Gee. He’s got me now. I surrender to settled science.
My poor inbox. All I see anymore when I open it, is Flopping Aces comments.
Is whats ‘is name still beating a dead horse? tubboblocked? Is he ever going to stop repeating the lie?
@Otter asks: ” ‘is name still beating a dead horse? tubboblocked? Is he ever going to stop repeating the lie? “
Of course he’s not going to stop. This isn’t science to these climate criminals it’s both a religion and a huge moneymaker.
@Patvann: Correct you are. None of these supposed “cures” will do anything to reduce carbon emissions. They’ll just tax it instead.
It’s all about the money.
And not one of them can HONESTLY say that if we were to cap carbon it would make the slightest difference on our climate.
There seems to be a delay in my posts arriving so I’m a bit out of phase with your comments. I assume that my one about the Sun is still pending as I write this at 22h00 Central european Time.
I see that you claim that peer reviewed science is biased… and yet you claim that the theory has been falsified on the basis of a list of what look to be peer reviewed papers. Er, run that by me one more time.
First let me make it clear that I don’t know who you are so I would prefer to assume that you are acting in good faith. I may get tetchy and wind you up from time to time, but only if you persist with pissing contests and insults. However I am not really impressed by that “proof”.
Let me look closer at your list: looks to me that your anti-IPCC literature is no later than 1992. So why isn’t there anything younger on your side there? Maybe modern science has found out something in the last 17 years. see here: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118533123/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Data%20sources/Matthews_Caldeira_%20Instant%20zero%20C%20GRL2008.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1704.full
http://www.cccma.ec.gc.ca/papers/kzickfeld/PDFS/eby_lifetime_09.pdf
I have another objection to your “proof”. Why should the fact that you have more papers outweigh the IPCC: are you saying that when the consensus is on your side it wins, but doesn’t when you don’t agree with it?
I save my most severe condemnation of your “proof” to last: the IPCC is a synthesis of the science: it doesn’t do any research itself. Therefore when you claim X papers proves the “one” IPCC report wrong, you are ignoring the fact that the IPCC report is based on many papers. So whoever created that graph is either unaware of how the IPCC works or assuming that you don’t know and is pulling the wool over your eyes.
They is a lot of political ranting in the above. I can catagorically state that there is no plan for a one world government. Given that we need one black helicopter per thousand people and population growth is 75 million/year we haven’t got the manufacturing capacity. Even commandeering all existing helicopters and painting them black would only give us two months grace. 😉
No seriously, where do you get this idea that it’s all a socialist plot to tax you and give the money to the third world?
You can certainly “categorically state” anything, Turbo. That, however, does not equate to being correct.
Since I know you’ll love to diss Lord Monckton, let’s examine what he says about your rewording of “one world government”.
Let’s have a look at the text of the proposed treaty with all the fill-in-the-blanks sentences.. Starting at the bottom of pg 18 the first reference to an international government:
Government “ruled by the COP”… the Conference of the Parties. Or, better put, this international bureacracy is “ruled” by unelected representatives from the UNFCCC members who’s goal is to establish legally binding obligations for developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
And what about that other “ruling” entity, the “executive board”, and it’s body, the EBFTA (Executive Body on Finance and Technology for Adaptation? That’s the group who holds the reins on the Adaptive Fund money, manages the certification system to receive funding, handle technology transfers, governs a Mitigation Fund, and other sundry money funds this intergovernmental body of unelected sorts creates. More on that on pg 141.
This “Executive Board” and it’s bodies answer to the “ruling” government/COP. These unelected COP powerhouses also get to “elect” the government representatives on the EBFTA technical panels that answer to the Executive Board.
We’re getting downright inbred with those bestowed with such power sans elections from the individual party States. But keep in mind these sundry technical subpanels, who’s membership comes from an election by unelected COP international “government” rulers.
This brings us to the words… “legally binding”. No treaty and bureacratic monstrosity has any teeth unless it has the powers of enforcement. Back to the much maligned Lord Monckton:
This potpourri of “technical panels” in this international government bureaucracy is vaguely described starting on pg 142.
Of special note is the “compliance” section…. also to be construed as an enforcement mechanism… starting on pg 145 of the preliminary treaty text. And for this, reporting to the secretariat is required with annual review by the Board of the Mutilateral Fund, who then reports to that “ruling” government body, the COP.
This BMF panel then defines the non-compliance standards, and penalties and fines… or a combination of the two…. who then can impose financial penalties, at a minimum of ten times the market price of carbon, for any emissions in excess of the level implied by the emissions reduction commitment.
Can you say unintended consequences? Or, perhaps more accurately described as … *intended* consequences with vague language masking that intent.
You may aver all you wish, Turbo. However the creation of this int’l government body of unelected bureaucrats, the power to control the money and impose fines, is nothing short of a world government that controls a huge sector of each State’s economy.
Now, as a caveat…. battling about the fill-in-the-blanks treaty is much like debating O’healthcare, of which there is no specific bill language and points to argue. What we have in Copenhage is very much the same… a disaster in the planning stages.
PolitiFact labels Lord Monckton’s comments a “britches on fire” lie. Not because what he says is false, but because there are no treaty specifics and that “… it’s impossible to know what agreement will come out of Copenhagen”.
Well dang.. this is like saying you’ll be killed when hit by a dump truck loaded with boulders, and someone else saying that’s a bald faced lie because until you’re hit by the truck, how do you know?
sigh
PolitiFact also finds it hard to believe the US would yield such sovereignty. Guess they haven’t looked around at the latest US political climate and the partisan make up of the US Congress. Aside from some “naw, couldn’t happen” absurdity, there is one viable comment INRE the Copenhagen treat that has credibility. And that’s the fact that a State can sign the treaty, however it has to be ratified by the State’s legislative (US Congress) body prior to being binding.
Personally, I’m not willing to risk that with our current Congress leadership.
However one thing is abundantly clear. Turbo is nothing short of delusional if he emphatically states there is “no one world government” attempt being made at Copenhagen. Quite the opposite.
The burning question will be, wil the US go along with a “one world government” bureaucracy that focuses on climate change? If voted on today, and with Pelosi/Reid/Obama occupying the appropriate bully pulpits, that answer would have to be a definitive “yes”.
@Turboblocke: “where do you get this idea that it’s all a socialist plot to tax you and give the money to the third world? “
You’ve got to be kidding.
Seriously, what planet are you living on? Whichever one is it I bet it’s WARMING too.
@Turdo
From the ADAM second-order draft PDF. Page 15, line 676 though 682
FOIA release, under “documents”.
(Mike, could check on stuck posts please?)
Done, Patvann… with pleasure. Mata
This film discusses the issue of one world government in detail and the role that climate criminals are playing in it’s implementation:
First comment: there is no point in my attempting to answer the points you raise if my posts are not getting through. Would a moderator please check that they’re noy getting blocked somewhere?
So far you’ve missed my quip about drag racing: done and dusted in a couple of seconds wouldn’t impress the ladies in Europe much 😉
and my rebuttal of “It’s the Sun”
I’m not going to delve deeply into Monkton, but the phrase you quote ” 38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:
(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.”
talks of three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism,..
In this case “government” is to be interpreted as a regulating mechanism: if it had been a Government, then how could it be “ruled by the COP”?
And NO international treaty takes away National Sovereignty. Full stop. How would any country be forced to comply to a treaty it does like? Look at Kyoto: the USA signed it about 15 years ago… and has done nothing since, where are the sanctions because of that?
@Turboblocke:
I just checked, and there was only one piece of spam sitting there. Nothing else. Don’t know when you posted, but I hope you saved the comment. Maybe you can try publishing it again?
Thanks for looking, Wordsmith. I didn’t save my comments, but will do so in the future. Any idea why there appears to be a few hours delay before they appear?
Back to what Patvann said at 96…
“Then there’s this pathetic defense:
A public talk ain’t the same as peer-reviewed science.
So lying to the public (including himself) is seen as “acceptable” as long as one doesn’t lie to a fellow scientist.”
Well I don’t know who he was going to address, but maybe he didn’t want to be sidetracked or maybe he didn’t think the audience would understand the following “There are natural and manmade influences on the climate; When they work together you get a super hot year like 1998. Naturally you can’t expect them to work together all the time, so temperatures will vary. At the moment the manmade element is of about the same magnitude as natural influences, so it can be masked by them.However, we are in a transient situation, as all the warming due to AGW has not yet been seen; If we reach equilibrium at current levels of CO2, the manmade effect will dominate the natural variation, which will still cause global temperature to have peaks and valleys.”
In 96 Patvann also said”Here’s a little factoid to think over: The 16 largest container ships in the world emit as much Sulfur as 880 million cars…That’s all the cars in the world.”
What he didn’t say was: there is no sulphur in petrol, nor in LPG. There is a negligable amount of sulphur in bio diesel, a little in Low Sulphur diesel and a bit more in normal diesel. So does Patvann apply the same standards to himself as to other people?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-low_sulfur_diesel
As regards Panama in the same post: that does rather show that national sovereignty takes precedence over international agreements doen’t it? All countries can do is limit the type of fuel burnt in their national waters. I understand that there is a WMO agreement on the cards: http://www.airclim.org/policy/sub6_4.php However, as with regulations on cleaning tanks at sea: the ships that contravene the regulations will be prosecuted, where applicable, not the country where they are registered.
@Turboblocke:
If there’s a delay, then you’ve most likely been fished out of spam when one of us finally logs in and checks to empty the bin. Sometimes comments end up “pending for review” either because of too manly links or if someone’s being moderated (I doubt anyone’s put you under moderation- that’s reserved for trolls), I think.
@Wordsmith: I haven’t seen any of his comments in spam but then I don’t always check too often. Besides, seems to me he’s just getting further and further down in the weeds on this thread. Now citing WIKIPEDIA, which has about the same credibility as climate criminals who perpetrated this WARMER fraud on mankind.